I am snoopy. I want to know what supervisors, the mayor or city council
are up to. That's why I think the Brown Act is terrific. Created in
1953 by California lawmakers to stop all those smoky back room deals,
it's a pillar of good government. It brings "sunshine" into the
decision-making process. We (you, me, everybody)have to told when
the decsion-makers' meetings will take place, where they take place and
what the agenda for the meeting will be. If our elected officials decide to blow it off, they're breaking the law.

So imagine my surprise when I learned that during a San Diego City
Council "2007 Mid-Year budget adjustments" hearing that more the money
was being shoved around. The date was March 26, 2007. It was Item 205
on the docket. Councilman Ben Hueso was upset because the City Attorney wasn't moving fast enough on a memorandum of understanding for a park in his district. (page 2) Then the notes from the meeting reflect Hueso's stream of consciousness rap that evolves into complaints about the city"losing money on litigations thatis not
necessary"(page 3 )and the city council needs to do something about it.

Councilmen Madaffer, who first mentioned the city attorney's budget in
this meeting, is in agreement.(page 1 & page 11). So is Council
President Scott Peters, who by the way, dislikes the city attorney
intensly and I suspect Michael Aguirre feels the same way about Peters.
Within a very short time, Peters has drawn up an amendment to the budget (page 13) that would restrict the city attorney's power to bring a civil lawsuit. (Can you
spell Sunroad?) The cost savings to the public, they figure, would be
enormous. There is no mention in the notes of how much money this would
save but Peters does go on a bit of a rant about the money he believes
the city attorney is costing taxpayers. (page 12)

So the city attorney, who is elected by the people to be the "chief
legal adviser of and attorney for the City," would be stripped of his
ability to bring civil lawsuits without "the authorization by an affirmative vote of the City Council."

It's perfectly legal says Mr. Peters. He told our 10News Investigative Reporter Marti Emerald that this was not a violation of the Brown Act. He says Mr. Maddafer, Mr. Young, Ms. Atkins and Mr. Hueso and he were fully within their rights to make the decision during budget hearings.

p.s.
The city attorney was granted his powers to bring suit by a vote of the
citizens of San Diego back in 1931.


Transcript of the budget hearing in PDF format:
Budget Transcript

The story:
Did City Council Violate Brown Act?

What do you think?
jwblog@10news.com