Costa Mesa council discussion of publicly elected mayor didn’t violate law, DA’s office says
The Orange County district attorney’s office has determined that a recent Costa Mesa City Council discussion of having a mayor elected by public vote did not violate the state open-meetings law, despite allegations by a former council member.
In a letter to former Councilwoman Wendy Leece, who requested the review, Senior Deputy District Atty. Raymond Armstrong wrote that the council did not violate the Ralph M. Brown Act during its July 5 meeting.
“You allege that the matter voted on, to divide the city into six voting districts and have a directly elected mayor, was not properly agendized and therefore violated the Brown Act,” Armstrong wrote. “After reviewing your complaint, we have concluded that there was no Brown Act violation and we are closing our inquiry into this matter.”
Leece said Thursday that she appreciates the district attorney’s office scrutiny but she believes the council could have done more to inform residents that the concept of a directly elected mayor was on the table for the meeting.
Currently, the council has five members elected by citywide vote. The mayor is chosen from among them by a majority vote of the council.
“This is a big change for Costa Mesa,” she said of the possible switch in voting systems. “So I just think that the city should have gone the extra mile in giving information to the public.”
She said she plans to seek additional review from the First Amendment Coalition.
The council voted 3-2 on July 5, with members Katrina Foley and Sandy Genis opposed, to endorse creating an elected mayor position as part of a plan to change to a council election system with six voting districts, each of which would choose a council member to represent it.
The council voted the next week to officially place the plan on the November ballot for a vote by local residents.
Leece asked the district attorney’s office last month to look into the July 5 meeting, saying that neither the agenda nor the agenda report outlined that council members would be discussing the concept of a directly elected mayor.
That, she said, deprived the public of the opportunity to review the idea before the meeting or to comment on specifics.
In his response dated July 29, Armstrong wrote that the issue was touched on in a consultant’s report attached to the agenda and was discussed at community meetings beforehand.
“It is reasonable to conclude that everyone who attended a community meeting — where the issue was specifically addressed — or who cared enough about the issue of the formation of voting districts to attend the council meeting and speak to the issue, would know this,” Armstrong wrote.
State law stipulates that creating an election system with an even number of voting districts also means having a mayor elected by popular vote.
As Leece pointed out, Armstrong’s letter acknowledged that the July 5 agenda didn’t explain that law.
However, even had there been a Brown Act violation, Armstrong wrote, it would have been corrected at the council’s next meeting July 12, when members voted to officially proceed with the concept of six districts and an elected mayor.
Leece said she still thinks the city “should have erred on the side of giving ‘TMI,’” or too much information.
“It’s not just the letter of the law, it’s the spirit of the Brown Act,” she said. “And at the end of the day, I think the city could have done a better job.”
Twitter: @LukeMMoney
