Citizen Watchdog Guide 12 21 15

Sunshine laws like the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act (CPRA)
are in themselves no guarantee of preventing the kind of bureaucratic
organized crime that former elected and appointed leaders of the City of Bell
were prosecuted for.
Those offenses involved such practices as city council members collecting
pay for their momentary meetings on do-nothing boards created simply to
justify that pay and, on the part of the city manager and his assistant,
manipulating certain contract documents and hiding others to conceal
astonishingly high rates of pay for themselves and the police chief.
If officials are prepared to resort to outright lies, conspiracy and fraud to
advance schemes they know the public would never accept, the open
government laws may not stop them. But these and other transparency laws
will make corruption much harder to commit and sustain, if reporters and
citizen watchdogs understand and use them confidently and consistently.
This is what was not happening in Belluntil the Los Angeles Times stumbled
onto some rumors and odd gaps in information and began using the CPRA
aggressively to uncover layer upon layer of astonishing self-dealing.
Even in communities free from criminal leadership, this guide will supply
sometimes neglected or overlooked information that can be real news for
journalists, fodder for public discussion by bloggers and other watchdogs,

and an agenda for action by alert citizens.
FURTHER WATCHDOG CONNECTIONS

Membership in Californians Aware
http://calaware.org/support/membership
Sharing ideas and experiences in the CalAware Community Forum

http://calaware.org/forums
Staying updated by signing on to CalAware Today

http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?sub=500999
Following Terry@CalAware on Twitter

https://mobile.twitter.com/who_to_follow
Supporting CalAware at no cost by making all your Amazon

purchases at http://tinyurl.com/lhogpat
Purchasing detailed CalAware Guides at Amazon.com

http://tinyurl.com/lhogpat -- searchword calaware
(c) 2015 Californians Aware
For help in overcoming transparency barriers, email info@calaware.org
CONTENTS:
Click on number to be taken to the
page
Meetings of Local Government Bodies and the
Brown Act 7
What is the Ralph M. Brown Act?
What legislative bodies does the Brown Act apply to?
When is there a meeting covered by the Act?
Does the Act allow out-of-town meetings?
Can the meeting place be relocated for emergencies?
How must Brown Act bodies publicize their meetings?
What notice is required for meetings held on a regular schedule?
What if action is taken or discussion is undertaken on off-agenda items?
What are the rules for public notice of special meetings?
What are the rules for public notice of emergency meetings?
10
When can the one-hour delay after alerting the press be disregarded?
10
When must copies of meeting-related documents be available?
10
Must the body allow public comment at regular meetings?
11
When may public comment be denied?
11
Must the body allow public comment at special meetings?
11
May the body limit the time allowed for public comment?
11
Must the body permit public comment on any matter?
11
May the body forbid comment on certain matters by the public?
11
What topics may the body address in closed session?
12
What personnel discussions does the Act permit in closed session?
12
When must an employee be alerted to a closed session about him or her?
12
Besides personnel, what are the other most frequent closed sessions?
13
Are there limits on the pending litigation closed session?
13
Are there limits on a property negotiation closed session?
14
Are there limits on an employee bargaining closed session?
14
Must any disclosures be made before or after closed sessions?
14
When the Brown Act is violated, what court enforcement is available?
14
Can the plaintiff who wins a Brown Act case recover attorneys fees?
15
Is a knowing and deliberate violation of the Brown Act a crime?
16
Beyond the Basics: What to Watch and Ask for 16

1. Ad Hoc Committees
16
2. Meetings off the Regular Schedule
16
a. Special Meetings
16
b. Emergency Meetings
17
3. Background Records Distributed to the Body
17
4. Serial Briefings
18
5. Closed Sessions
18
a. Litigation
19
b. Personnel
21
c. Employee Bargaining and Raises
23
d. Real Property
25
Government Information and the Public Records

Act
27
What is the California Public Records Act?
27
Does the CPRA apply to federal records?
27
Does the CPRA apply to all records in state and local government?
27
Must I make my CPRA access request in writing?
28
Must I identify myself in making an access request?
28
Must I reveal my purpose in making an access request?
28
How well must I describe what Im looking for?
28
Can I require the agency to compile a list or write a report?
29
Must the agency help me make an effective request?
29
What can I be charged a fee for: Inspection? Copying?
29
How soon must my request get a response?
30
Is an exemption from disclosure a prohibition on access?
30
May the agency restrict access to certain favored members of the public?
31
If part of a record is exempt, may all of it be withheld?
31
Are draft documents exempt from disclosure as such?
32
Are litigation-related records exempt permanently?
32
What kind of information can be withheld to protect personal privacy?
32
Are the exact earnings of named government workers public or private?
33
Are complaints about and discipline of public employees confidential?
33
Which law enforcement information is exempt from disclosure?
33
Must I sign something or show credentials to get access?
34
Are the CPRA exemptions the only legal bases for withholding?
35
Can a record be withheld even if not expressly exempted by some law?
35
What is the deliberative process privilege?
36
Beyond the Basics: What to Watch and Ask for 37

1. Money Issues
37
a. Employment Contracts
37
b. Loans
37
c. Credit Cards and Expense Reimbursements
37
d. Merchandise and Service Contracts; Leases
38
e. Check or Warrant Registers
38
2. Integrity Issues
38
a. Economic Interests
38
b. Political Contributors
39
c. Ethics Training
39
3. Performance Issues
39
a. Litigation Claims and Settlements
39
b. Audits and Grand Jury Reports
40
c. State Auditor
40
d. State Controller
40
e. Grand Juries
41
Records Preservation and Destruction
41
City Records
41
County Records
41
Community College District Records
41
School District Records
41
Meetings and Records of Local Court

Administration
42
What kinds of administrative records are available under the Rule?
42
What are the applicable exemptions from disclosure under Rule 10.500?
42
How do I make a request for court administrative records?
43
Will I be charged a fee for copies?
43
Finances, Performance and Integrity 43
Sample Brown Act Demand to Cease and Desist a

Violation
45
Sample Brown Act Demand to Cure/Correct a
Violation
46
Sample Public Records Act Request
48
Meetings of Local Government Bodies and

the Brown Act
(Check the full, up-to-date text of the law at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displaycode?section=gov&group=54001-55000&file=54950-54963)
The Basics: Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Ralph M. Brown Act?
The Brown Act is the California statute that requires multi-member legislative bodies
of local government agencies to hold their meetings open to the public and upon adequate
prior notice, and to allow citizens access to related public records and to address the
bodies at the meetings.
What legislative bodies does the Brown Act apply to?
That term encompasses the agencys governing body (for example the board of
supervisors of a county), any body created by state law (for example its planning
commission), any city body created by charter, and any standing committee of any of
these bodies.
It also applies to any multi-member body created by ordinance, resolution or other
formal action of an existing legislative body to serve as a special advisory or study group,
if the group contains one or more members who are not on the creating body (for
example a blue ribbon or outreach task force comprising at least some staff members
and other citizens). Government Code 54952, subdivisions (a) and (b). In the latter
case, if the advisory body has been created as the result of a legislative bodys policy, it
makes no difference that the members are selected or appointed by staffthe body is
subject to the Act. Frazer v. Dixon Unified School District, 18 Cal.App.4th 781 (1993).
In some cases, the Act may also apply to a board of a private corporation, namely if
either:
the legislative body played a significant role in creating the corporation to perform a
function spun off from the local agency (Section 54952, subdivision (c) (1) (A)); or
the legislative body provides funding to the corporation and appoints one of its own
members to the corporate board as a voting member (Section 54952, subdivision (c) (1)
(B)).
Also, a court has concluded that a joint powers agency created by agreement among
most cities in Los Angeles County to investigate and curtail illegal drug activities and
other crime was an instance of an other local public agency subject to the Brown Act
under Government Code 54951. McKee v. Los Angeles I.M.P.A.C.T., 134 Cal.App.4th
354 (2005).
Copyright 2015 Californians Aware
Ask questions or share your experiences at http://calaware.org/forums
When is there a meeting covered by the Act?
The term usually refers to a literal congregation of a majority of the members . . . at the
same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.
Government Code 54952.2, subdivision (a). But the Act also prohibits equivalent
meetings of minds arranged indirectly, namely any use of direct communication,
personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the
members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be
taken . . . Section 54952.2, subdivision (b).
But such serial meeting violations do not arise casually, since the Act exempts
isolated individual contacts or conversations between a member of a legislative body
and any other person. Section 54952.2, subdivision (c), paragraph (1). And because the
meeting definition is so broad, several occasions are specified when a majority may be
present together and at least listen to matters relevant to their agency without triggering
the Acts requirements, namely:
professional conferences, local community forums, meetings of other local agency
bodies, providing that the event is open to the public and the attending members do not
take the occasion to discuss among themselves specific matters that they have authority
to act on. Section 54952.2, subdivision (c), paragraphs (2)-(4);
a purely social or ceremonial occasion, with the same caveat against specific
public business discussions, Section 54952.2, subdivision (c), paragraph (5); and
an open and noticed meeting of a standing committee of (their) body, provided that
the (visiting) members . . . who are not members of the standing committee attend only as
observers, Section 54952.2, subdivision (c), paragraph (6).
Does the Act allow out-of-town meetings?
Yes, but only for a limited list of purposes. Retreats out of the area are not on the list,
which permits a majority or more to get together outside the agencys boundaries only to:
comply with a court-ordered or otherwise legally mandated meeting or watch a court
or administrative proceeding where the agency is a party;
inspect property the body is discussing at a special meeting;
attend meetings of multi-agency significance hosted by and within the boundaries
of one of the participating local agencies;
meet in some public gathering facility if there is none within the home agencys
boundaries;
meet with federal or California state officials on matters of common interest and
jurisdiction, if a local visit by the officials would be impractical;
discuss, on-site or nearby, a remote facility owned by the local agency;
confer in a closed litigation session with outside legal counsel, at his or her office, if
doing so would save the agency money; or
in the case of a school board only, attend a conference on nonadversarial collective
bargaining techniques; interview a potential employee from another district; or interview
residents of another district about the prospects of hiring its superintendent. Government
Code 54954, subdivision (b), paragraphs (1)-(5).
Can the meeting place be relocated for emergencies?
Yes. Within the local agencys boundaries, if an emergency leaves the bodys normal
meeting place unsafe to occupy, the site can be moved for the duration of the emergency
for special meetings, with appropriate notice to the local media. Government Code
54954, subdivision (c).
How must Brown Act bodies publicize their meetings?
The requirements vary depending on how routine or unusual the meeting is.
What notice is required for meetings held on a regular schedule?
For regular meetings, notice specifying the time, place and agenda of the meeting must be
posted in a place freely accessible to the public, as well as on the agencys website, if
it has one, 72 hours in advance. The Attorney General has concluded that Government
Code 54952 (a) permits a city to fulfill this requirement by means of an electronic kiosk
located in front of the city hall and accessible without charge to the public 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. Opinion No. 03-1107 (2/24/04). The agenda must include a brief
general description of each item to be transacted or discussed . . . which generally need
not exceed 20 words per item. Nothing not on the agenda may be acted on unless:
an emergency meeting would be justified in any event, or
the matter is continued from the agenda of a meeting less than six days previously,
or
the body makes a preliminary vote finding that there is a need to take immediate
action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency after the
agenda notice was posted. That finding must be voted by two thirds of the members
present, or where fewer than two thirds of the members are present, by all present.
What if action is taken or discussion is undertaken on off-agenda
items?
Action taken on off-agenda items where none of the above conditions apply is voidable
by a court, assuming someone sues to have it set aside. As for discussion or comments on
off-agenda items, they are limited to brief informational responses by members to
statements or questions from the public, questions for clarification, a brief announcement
or report of a members personal activities, or direction to staff to follow up on a citizens
issue or place it on the agenda of a future meeting. Meeting notices must be provided in
formats accessible to the disabled if so requested. Government Code 54954.2.
What are the rules for public notice of special meetings?
Special meetings (those not on the regular schedule)
10
may be called at any time by the presiding officer . . . or by a majority of the

members . . . by delivering written notice to each member . . . . and to each local
newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station requesting notice in
writing and posting a notice on the local agency's Internet Web site, if the local agency
has one. The notice shall be delivered personally or by any other means and . . .
received at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting . . . The call and notice shall
specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted or
discussed. No other business shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative
body. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the
time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary . . . a written waiver of notice .
. . The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually
present at the meeting at the time it convenes.
Government Code 54956 (emphasis added).

What are the rules for public notice of emergency meetings?
Emergency meetings require no general public notice. They can be called by

telephone notice to the members and convene an hour after local newspapers and
broadcasters that have requested such notice and provided phone numbers to be used
have been alerted. But they may address only matters upon which prompt action is
necessary due to the disruption or threatened disruption of public facilities caused by a
a work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health,
safety, or both. The only closed session permitted is one addressing personnel or public
access to facilities, as provided in Government Code 54957, and then only if agreed to
by two thirds of those present, or if less than two thirds of the body is present,
unanimously. Minutes must be posted for 10 days in a public place as soon as possible.
Government Code 54956.5.
When can the
disregarded?
one-hour
delay
after
alerting
the
press
be
If the topic is a dire emergency, defined as being caused by criminal or terrorist

activity, the meeting may convene as soon as any requesting local media have been
alerted; it need not await their arrival.
When must copies of meeting-related documents be available?
Documents in an agenda packet become accessible to the public at the point they are
distributed to at least a majority of the local agencys legislative body. This rule is not
confined to the agenda packet, however. It applies to any documents distributed to a
majority or more of the body, if the information is connected with a matter subject to
discussion or consideration at a public meeting. All such documents become, at the
point of such distribution, available upon request without delay unless expressly
exempt from disclosure under the law. If distributed to the body only at the meeting, they
must be made immediately available, if prepared by agency staff or a member of the
body; if by someone else, then after the meeting. Meeting-related documents must be in
formats accessible to the disabled if so requested. None of these rules may be used to
11
postpone access to a record that would otherwise be available sooner under the California
Public Records Act (CPRA), for example on the grounds that the record has not yet
gone to the board. Fees permitted by the CPRA may be charged for copies of records,
but not surcharges for special formats that would be prohibited by the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act. Government Code 54957.5.
Must the body allow public comment at regular meetings?
Yes. Government Code 54954.3 requires regular meeting agendas to

provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body
on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration
of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided
that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action
is otherwise authorized
When may public comment be denied?
A body may deny public comment on any agenda item previously considered at a public
meeting of a committee of the body, if all interested members of the public were then
given the opportunity to address the committee on that item. If the body decides that the
item has been substantially changed since the committee hearing, the public can regain
the right to comment. Section 54954.3, subdivision (a).
Must the body allow public comment at special meetings?
Yes, but only concerning an item described in the notice for the meeting, before or
during consideration of that item. Section 54954.3, subdivision (a).
May the body limit the time allowed for public comment?
Yes. Section 54954.3, subdivision (b) allows the body to adopt reasonable regulations
governing citizens addressing the body, including, but not limited to, regulations
limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and
for each individual speaker.
Must the body permit public comment on any matter?
No. Subject matter jurisdiction is simply the scope of issues that the body has authority
to deal with; for example, a city council need not take comments on matters exclusively
within the powers of a county or other public agency, or that strictly concern the private
lives of members of the council or employees and have no bearing on their official duties
or responsibilities. But this should not preclude the right of citizens, for example, to urge
the city council to communicate with the county and request its action on a matter of
general interest.
May the body forbid comment on certain matters by the public?
Not based on the topic, so long as it pertains to the bodys subject matter jurisdiction (see
12
above). The Act states, in Section 54954.3, subdivision (c), The legislative body of a
local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or
services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. In addition,
because the speech provision in subdivision (a) amounts to the Legislatures creation of a
limited public foruma time and place designated for public speechunder the First
Amendment the body may not prevent a citizen from making a statement that may be
unfair, untrue and/or even defamatory, so long as it concerns the agencys business. Baca
v. Moreno Valley Unified School District, 36 F. Supp. 719 (1996). But the body may
curtail speech that is unduly repetitive or wanders off the appropriate topic. White v. City
of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421 (1989). Above all, application of time limits and other ground
rules must be strictly neutral, not favoring speech the body welcomes and/or burdening
speech it dislikes. Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 823 F. Supp. 709, 713 (1993).
What topics may the body address in closed session?
The body may meet in closed session only for a handful of expressly described purposes.
The most common are to discuss personnel issues and to consult with its bargaining
agent on property or employee compensation negotiations, or with its attorney on
pending litigation.
What personnel discussions does the Act permit in closed
session?
The body may use a closed session for essentially any discussion of the qualifications,
strengths, weaknesses, merits or demerits, conduct or misconduct of one or more public
employees subject to hiring or firing by the body. Government Code 54957 states, in
pertinent part:
(b) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), nothing contained in (the Brown Act) shall be construed
to prevent the legislative body of a local agency from holding closed sessions . . . to
consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or
dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the
employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests a public
session.
(2) As a condition to holding a closed session on specific complaints or charges brought
against an employee by another person or employee, the employee shall be given
written notice of his or her right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open
session rather than a closed session, which notice shall be delivered to the employee
personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time for holding the session. If notice
is not given, any disciplinary or other action taken by the legislative body against the
employee based on the specific complaints or charges in the closed session shall be null
and void.
*****
(4) For the purposes of this subdivision, the term employee shall include an officer or an
independent contractor who functions as an officer or an employee but shall not include
any elected official, member of a legislative body or other independent contractors . . .
Closed sessions held pursuant to this subdivision shall not include discussion or action
13
on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation that results from the
imposition of discipline.
(emphasis added) The body may discuss compensation matters only in a closed session
under Government Code 54957.6.
When must an employee be alerted to a closed session about him or
her?
The right to a notice in paragraph (2) above does not apply to a routine evaluation of
performance nor, for example, to a school or community college district boards
discussion of the performance of a probationary employee, as part of the decision
whether or not to retain him or her on the permanent staff. Furtado v. Sierra Community
College, 68 Cal.App.4th 876 (1998). This holds true especially where any specific
complaints or charges had been dealt with on lower administrative appeal and were not
part of the boards deliberation. Fischer v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 70
Cal.App.4th 87 (1999). Similarly, the court in Bollinger v. San Diego Civil Service
Commission, 71 Cal.App.4th 568 (1999) concluded that since the Act refers to the
employee's right to have complaints or charges "heard" in open session, if the body is not
conducting an evidentiary hearing, but simply deliberating whether to ratify the
recommendations of a prior administrative hearing, the right to notice does not apply.
As for when there is enough of a specific complaint or charge to be discussed in
closed session to warrant a notice to the employee, the court in Bell v. Vista Unified
School District, 82 Cal.App.4th 672 (2000) held that a high school football coach had
been denied his rights when his school board employer held a closed session, without
giving him the 24-hour written notice, to consider disciplining him. The California
Interscholastic Federation (CIF) had imposed a one-year suspension on Bells schools
athletic program as the result of Bells involvement in the transfer of a foreign student in
violation of federation rules. CIFs notice to the district, the court held, qualified as a
specific complaint or charge.
Besides personnel, what are the other most frequent closed
sessions?
Closed sessions are legal for conferrals to guide litigation or bargaining. That is, when the
body needs to consult with its attorney on pending litigation, or with its negotiator
concerning a proposed deal to acquire or dispose of a real property interest, or concerning
union bargaining, these consultations may take place in closed session. The purpose is to
avoid disclosing the agencys litigation or negotiation strategy to the adversary.
Are there limits on the pending litigation closed session?
The power to hold a closed session on pending litigation is confined to a legislative body
only if the body or the agency it governs is an actual party to the litigation to be
discussed. Shapiro v. Board of Directors of the Centre City Development Corporation,
134 Cal.App.4th 170 (2005). The pending litigation session may involve an actual case in
14
court or before an administrative law tribunal, or a case the agency may want to bring in
such a forum, or the threat of litigation made by some other person or entity. In the latter
instance, the closed session must be justified in light of existing facts and
circumstances threatening litigation, which generally must be disclosed on request prior
to the session or afterwards: who is making the threat and what they say.
Within a litigation session the body may actually vote to sue, defend a suit, settle or
appeal. But it may not meet directly with the adversary to discuss settlement.
Government Code 54956.9. And it may not take action in the closed session to settle a
lawsuit by approving a permit or other application that other law requires to be reviewed
in an open and public session. Trancas POA v. City of Malibu, 138 Cal.App.4th 172
(2006).
Are there limits on a property negotiation closed session?
Yes. The real property negotiation session must concern a disclosed, specifically
identified piece of property under negotiation with a specifically identified party. The
scope of discussion is confined to the price and/or terms of payment for the
transaction. Government Code 54956.8. If there are no such specific negotiations under
discussion, the closed session may not be lawful. At a minimum, all other topics for
discussion must be disclosed on the agenda. Shapiro v. San Diego City Council, 96
Cal.App.4th 904 (2002).
Are there limits on an employee bargaining closed session?
Yes. The employee bargaining closed session concerning pay, benefits and other
negotiable items may include discussion of budgetary priorities as part of the variables.
The session is to allow the body to confer with its own bargaining agent, who separately
meets with representatives of employee unions, or with top-level executives as
unrepresented employees negotiating for better pay or benefits. In the latter category,
any final action on increased compensation must be confined to open session.
Government Code 54957.6.
Must any disclosures be made before or after closed sessions?
Both. Every item to be addressed at a meeting must be given a brief general

description on the posted agenda. This includes closed sessions. The agency has a
choice of using its own approach and language to disclose closed session topicsan
option that may leave it open to being sued for having given inadequate noticeor
adopting the standard agenda listing templates provided in Government Code 54954.5,
which will insulate it from being sued on such grounds. That section provides elements of
such a safe harbor agenda listing for most but not quite all closed sessions authorized
by the Act. If there is doubt about the conformity with the safe harbor rules, which are
lengthy, they should be consulted in the statute.
The Act also requires that most, if not all, actions taken by the body in closed session
be disclosed afterwards, either immediately at the same meeting in most cases, or upon
request later if there remains some formality to complete the action, such as acceptance
15
by the other party in employee union or litigation settlement negotiations. In either case
the body must reveal the action taken, the votes or abstentions of the members present,
and if the action amounted to approving a document such as a contract, lease or
settlement agreement. That document is available on request after the closed session, or
when the bodys action is accepted by the adverse party. Government Code 54957.1.
When the Brown Act is violated, what court enforcement is
available?
The remedies vary depending on the kind of violation or its consequences.

If the object is to force the body to comply with the law in the future when it has failed
to do so but insists that its conduct is lawful, the Act allows any person or the district
attorney to file a lawsuit in the superior court seeking a declaratory judgment that the law
has been or is being violated. This cause of action is usually coupled with an injunction
ordering compliance in the future. If the challenged activity has happened only once, the
challenger can lay the groundwork for a court determination by sending a cease and
desist letter to the body, demanding that it formally commit not to repeat the conduct in
question. Unless the body does so within 30 days, the challenger may take the matter to
court for a declaratory judgment (that the Brown Act applies to and was violated by the
challenged behavior) and an injunction barring further violations.
If the court finds that the body used a closed session for an unlawful discussion or
action, it may order it to tape record its closed sessions (and preserve the recordings) for a
certain period thereafter, to encourage compliance and provide evidence of repeated
violations. The tapes are not public records but may be reviewed by a court in any
similar subsequent lawsuit. Government Code 54960.
If the goal instead is to overturn a particular action taken in violation of the Brown
Act, any person or the district attorney may file a suit asking the superior court to find
that the body violated the Act in taking an action that should be therefore declared null
and void. This remedy is confined to actions taken with unlawful secrecy (outside a
public meeting) or unlawful surprise (at a public meeting, but not given adequate notice
on the agenda). Lawsuits seeking invalidation of secret actions must be preceded by a
written notice to the body, delivered no later than 90 days from the date of the alleged
action, demanding a suitable cure and correction. To invalidate surprise actions, the
notice period for demanding cure and correction is only 30 days. In any event no one has
standing to sue who actually knew about the item at least 72 hours before the meeting at
which action was taken. Once the body makes an unsatisfactory response to the demand,
or when 30 days passes without response, the plaintiff has just 15 days to file the
nullification action in court. The court may decline to nullify an action if:
the body has satisfactorily cured the violation;
the action dealt with the sale or issuance of notes, bond or other instruments of debt,
or with the collection of a tax;
the action resulted in a contract with a third party who had no knowledge of a Brown
Act violation and would be harmed by having the contract nullified (this does not apply
to a salary or fee for professional services, which contract may be nullified). Government
16
Code 54960.1. See sample cure and correct demand letter on page 48.
Can the plaintiff who wins a Brown Act case recover attorneys fees?
Yes. If the plaintiff wins in any of these civil actions, he, she or it may be entitled to an
award of attorneys fees and costs from the defendant agency. This is especially likely if
the lawsuit clearly benefited the public rather than just the plaintiffs private interests, and
was necessary to force compliance with the law. If the plaintiff loses and the court finds
that the lawsuit was clearly frivolous and totally lacking in merit, the defendant agency
may ask the court to order the plaintiff to pay its costs and fees. Government Code
54960.5.
Is a knowing and deliberate violation of the Brown Act a crime?
Yes. Government Code 54959 provides: Each member of a legislative body who
attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any
provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of
information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled
under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Beyond the Basics: What to Watch and Ask for

1. Ad Hoc Committees
The Brown Act does not contain the term ad hoc, although it is not uncommon for local
bodies to create what they designate as ad hoc committees. Correctly used, the term
refers to short-term, limited-purpose factfinding or problem-solving bodies, often with a
fixed term or a set date for reporting back to the creating body before being dissolved.
The Brown Acts public notice, open meeting and other rules apply to ad hoc committees
(or task forces, blue ribbon panels, etc.) that include at least one person not on the
creating bodya staff or community member, for example. But an ad hoc committee
comprising only members of the creating bodytwo out of five city council members,
for exampleis not subject to the Brown Act. To exploit this exclusion and avoid open
meetings, some government bodies will mislabel as ad hoc what are really standing
committeespermanent sub-units of a governing body that provide a forum for the initial
consideration and sifting of proposals in particular policy areasfor example a school
boards committees on curriculum, pupil transportation, or buildings and grounds.
Suggestion: If a local body appoints what it calls an ad hoc committee
comprising only its own members but gives it no particular task or windup date but
instead a broad area of policy initiative or oversight, suggest that the body is really a
standing committee and must comply with the Brown Act. And if the body is truly ad
hoc in terms of a short-term specific assignment, remind the agency that it must still
17
comply with the Brown Act if the committee has any members not from the creating
body.
2. Meetings off the Regular Schedule
Some of the most interesting discussions and actions are handled in meetings held at a
time, place or both different from the bodys regular meetings.
a. Special Meetings
Special meetings can be held for any reasontheres no urgency requirementbut often
involve matters that are too complex, controversial or both to be handled at a regular
business meeting. Its tempting for officials to consign controversial matters to special
meetings even if theyre not particularly complex, because then the regular meetings 72hour advance agenda notice posting is collapsed to 24 hours. Local newspapers and
broadcasters are required to be sent that notice in writing, however, and any action taken
without that media notice can be reversed by a court, but only if the news organization
has submitted a specific written request for notice of special meetings to that agency.
Suggestion: This need not be done more than once, but to prove it was
sent, use request receipt postal mail. Be sure to designate the business address (for a
messenger service), e-mail address, and/or fax number to be used in sending the special
meeting notice. If the agency has more than one legislative body governed by the Brown
Act, you can name each in the request and add and any other body required to comply
with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Watchdogs with other news organizations (online only,
magazines, etc.) or public interest groups can ask to be provided a courtesy copy of the
notice sent to newspapers and broadcasters; the request can be made to the agency
administration, to a friendly member of the body or bodies of main interest (who get their
own alerts at least 24 hours in advance), or even to a newspaper or broadcaster thats filed
to get such notices sent to them.
b. Emergency Meetings
These are reserved to address imminent or existing threats to public health or safety only,
and that makes them newsworthy by anyones definition. An emergency meeting
addressing either natural disasters or crises caused by accidents or key public employee
walkoutsnon-criminal eventscan be called by telephone alert to the bodys members
and requesting local newspapers and broadcasters, and can start one hour after the news
groups have been alerted. If the crisis stems from a criminal or terrorist act or threat, the
meeting can commence without the one-hour delay for journalist arrival, but in either
case the only news groups eligible for notice are those that have requested it in writing
and supplied one or more phone numbers to be dialed for the alert, e.g. one for business
hours, another for nights and weekends.
Suggestion: This request can be made in the same letter requesting notice
of special meetings. Those not with local newspapers or broadcasters are free to cultivate
18
sources for a courtesy alert. The only closed session permitted at emergency meetings is
one used to hear reports from law enforcement officials on threats to public access to
public facilities, e.g. bomb threats, and plans to deal with them.
3. Background Records Distributed to the Body
In general the CPRA gives public agencies up to 10 days to make a determination and
inform the requester as to whether the documents sought are considered public and will
be provided, in whole or in part, for inspection or copying. Many if not most public
agencies exploit this period to delay response even in the case of records that are public
beyond dispute. But the Brown Act requires a local agency to provide access without
delay to any document that has been distributed to most or all members of a public
agency body in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a
public meeting of the body, whether or not that matter is included on the agenda of the
next meeting. Anyone, journalist or otherwise, is entitled to immediate access to such
documentsbut the problem is how to know theyve been distributed.
Suggestion: One approach would be to make an e-mail request every few
days for copies of such recordsprovided by e-mail, as they would probably have been
provided to members of the body. Or it may turn out that such information is batched in
once-a week reports from agency staff. School superintendents, for example, often send
district trustees Friday letters with information they do not intend to report at meetings
but which is not legally confidential or exempt from disclosure, such as the details about
legal claims for damages against the district. Draft copies of environmental impact
reports or other consultants work may also be distributed to the body far in advance.
4. Serial Briefings
Local agency staff can use private serial briefings to educate and even lobby members of
a body on public meeting issues so thoroughly that a good deal of the explanatory
dialogue one might expect to hear at the public meeting may have already taken place
behind closed doors and will not be aired in front of the community. The Brown Act was
amended a few years back to allow agency staffa CEO or even a department head
systematically to brief members of the governing or other body about issues likely to
come up on a future agenda, so long as the staff member does not act as a go-between to
educate the members on one anothers positions or questions on the issue.
Suggestion: These are not meetings open to the public, but any related
records would be public unless they had been prepared for discussion in a pending closed
session, or unless exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. For example calendar or
schedule information showing when such meetingscall them those authorized under
Government Code Section 54952.2 (b) (2)would be held, and who would be present;
memos or other informative documents prepared for discussion at such meetings; and
minutes or other summaries prepared by staff concerning issues discussed at the
meetings.
19
5. Closed Sessions
The most frequently occurring closed sessions signal information of high public interest:
unplanned turns of events that have resulted in likely or actual lawsuits, by or against the
agency; the hiring, promotion, compensation, discipline or dismissal of staff reporting to
the governing body; prospects for buying, selling or leasing land or buildings; and
dealings with employee unions that could result in higher pay or benefits, including
pension support. These closed session discussions can be kept confidential, but often
whats going on can be ferreted out by asking the right questions and seeking the right
records at the right time. Closed session topics are required to be listed on the meeting
agenda with a certain degree of specificity, but are frequently stated in opaque code and
are otherwise somewhat vague, even to veteran observers. Most final actions taken in
closed session are likewise required to be disclosed afterwardalthough not necessarily
immediately.
Suggestion: If you want the earliest possible look at what has been agreed
to in closed session, prepare a form letter requesting to be given a copy of any
agreementa litigation settlement, a contract, a memorandum of understanding, or a real
property lease, purchase or other transactionapproved by the body in closed at the
meeting pursuant to my rights under Government Code Section 54957.1 (b) if the
agreement has been given final acceptance by the body and does not require further
action by the other party to the agreement. Sign, date and submit a copy of the letter to
the clerk of the body before every meeting, as soon as the agenda has been posted and
shows that there will be a closed session on pending litigation, employee unit bargaining
or real property negotiations. If there is such an agreement approved in a closed session at
that meeting, the body will then be on notice to have an extra copy to give you when the
approval is announced afterwards, which it must be if the bodys agreement has brought
closure to the negotiations. If the agreement will be final only upon acceptance by the
other party, the body need not announce its approval or provide a copy of the text until
that time
a. Litigation
There are three varieties of litigation-related closed session, each differently signaled in
the boilerplate most bodies use for its agenda listings.
(1)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION
Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9)
This heading refers to a case already filed in court, in which the actual title caption must
be noted, e.g. City v. Smith or Jones v. District, with a case number. So identified, the
complaint, petition or other initial papers can be found in the court file or are open to
public inspection or copying at the office of the agency. In rare instances the agenda may
instead say Case name unspecified. That means either of only two things. One is that
20
the agency has filed an action against some defendant but has not yet served the papers,
and for some reason believes the adversary will duck service if alerted by the agenda
notice (in which case the mystery shouldnt last long). The other is that the agencys
lawyer is talking settlement with the opposing counsel but does not want to telegraph that
he or she has to go back to the agencys governing body and get authority to agree to a
certain term; in other words, the lawyer wants to leave the impression he or she has a free
hand to demand, accept or reject a given deal point. If this is the reason for not stating the
case name, of course, it means the case under settlement negotiation has already been
named on a previous agenda.
Suggestion: A little checking should make it easy to see which case has
appeared one or more times before in recent meetings, but does not show up on the
current agenda.
(2)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
54956.9.
This consultation with the bodys attorney is to discuss one or more threats of litigation
not yet filed against the agency. In most instances the only added information required on
the agenda is the number of anticipated cases to be discussed. But exactly what
constitutes the significant exposure to litigation is limited to only a handful of
situations:
a. An accident, incident or contract mishap has occurred that may well lead to a
lawsuit, when that prospect is already known to the likely plaintiff. In this case the
agency must identify the mishap either on the agenda or in an oral announcement prior to
the closed session.
b. An accident, incident or contract mishapor some other kind of unusual event
has occurred that may well prompt litigation, but the bodys attorney believes it is not yet
known to the likely plaintiff. In this case no further disclosure needs to be made until and
unless that party does become aware and reacts under scenarios 3-5 below.
c. The likely plaintiff has actually sent the agency a pre-litigation claim (stating the
amount of money sought in damages and the reason why) or some other written threat of
legal action. In this case the claim or written threat is a public record immediately
available to whoever asks for itbut you need to ask. So when you see the anticipated
litigation tag on the agenda and it doesnt mention why, ask for any claim or other
written threat that has triggered the closed session. Let the agency know you know that
youre entitled to see it before the closed session takes place, pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9 (b) (3) (C); you should only have to be this emphatic once, if at all.
d. Someone from the audience at a regular public meeting, in addressing the body,
makes what the agency interprets as a threat of suing the agency about a specific matter.
If this statement is going to be used to justify an immediate closed session, then since the
21
threat was not a topic on the posted agenda, the body will have to make a specific finding
that there is a need for immediate action to address that threat, and approve that finding
by a supermajority vote (at least four out of five members, or five out of seven, etc.). But
since immediate action is probably seldom necessary on a mere oral threat, its more
likely such a threat would result in a closed session only at a later meeting, and by that
time, if its serious, it will probably have been followed by a written threat (in which case
see c above).
e. At some point before the meeting, the likely plaintiff has uttered an oral threat of
litigation, express or implied, in a conversation with a member of the body or the staff
that is considered by legal counsel to be serious enough to warrant a closed session, even
if no written threat has yet been received. In this case whoever heard the statement must,
in order to justify the closed session, write a memo identifying the threatening person and
reporting what he or she said. This memo is a public record available on request prior to
the closed session, just like a written threat (see c above). The memo need not name
either the alleged victim of a sexual impropriety or the agency employee accused of any
wrongful conduct, unless these names have already been somehow disclosed.
Suggestion: Two overall points: The first: Ask, ask, ask. Dont wait to be
offered the documentation youre entitled to under 2 and 4 above, because you wont be.
The second: If for some reason you didnt ask for these records before the meeting,
youre still entitled to them afterwards.
(3) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9.
This refers to the discussion of the need or opportunity to sue some other party. The only
added information required is the number of potential cases to be considered.
After these closed sessions the body is required to disclose two types of approval given:
to commence or respond to an action in court, and/or to settle a case before or during
trial. The first kind of approval to defend, or seek or refrain from seeking appellate
review or relief, or to enter as an amicus curiae in any form of litigation must be
reported immediately, within the same meeting. The report must name the adverse party
(Smith v. City, for example) and say what the case is about. If what has been given is
approval to sue another party or intervene in a pending lawsuit, the identity of the adverse
party, the nature of the action can be withheld until the approved action shows up in
court, but the public must at least be told that an approval to sue, appeal or intervene has
been given.
As for approved settlements, there are two possibilities. One is that the bodys
approval of the settlement ends negotiations and there is no need to go back to the other
side. This outcome would be most likely if there had been no case filed in court and the
settlement has simply headed off that prospect. If that is the case, the approval disclosure
must be immediatewithin the same meeting. If the settlement occurs after the case has
22
been filed, court approval may be required, and disclosure may be delayed until then.
And in any event, if closure of settlement negotiations will occur only upon the adverse
partys acceptance, disclosure can be held off until that point.
Suggestion: These contingencies, and the burden of alertness they place
upon the public, mean that if you have been following announcements of closed sessions
concerning a particular case over a succession of meetings and now do not see the case
listed, you should ask the agencys attorney if a settlement approval has been given by
the body, and when a disclosure is likely. You may have to seek this information
repeatedly but you are entitled to it as soon as a court, the adverse party or both have
given their approval as well. The information you are entitled to includes the date on
which the body gave its approval, the vote or abstention of every member present, and
the substance of the settlement. You are also entitled to the text of the settlement
agreementbut again, you will probably have to ask for it. Another thing to ask for that
almost no one does is copies of communications between the parties leading up to the
settlement and documents shared by one with the other. These can provide insights into
how the settlement was achieved, and what issues played into the bargaining.
b. Personnel
A Brown Act body is permitted a closed session to discuss hiring, appointing, evaluating
the performance of, hearing complaints or charges about, or firing the agencys
employees who report to itso long as the discussion is about particular people and not
personnel issues in general, and so long as compensation is not discussed. The agenda
listings for these various topics vary, as do the requirements for disclosures of any action
taken.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
(for hiring senior positions, or for promotions or reassignments to a different job) or

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
(for rank and file hires). The agenda must also identity the title of the position to be
filled. If the body acts to appoint or employ someone in the closed session it must
announce that fact afterward, noting the position filled, during the same meeting.
Suggestion: If the announcement does not name the person (the Brown
Act does not require it), ask anyway. The agency may not want to begin the new
employees tenure by refusing to identify him or her.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
plus the position title of the employee being reviewed. The courts have concluded that
such closed sessions may be used to discuss and set new or revised goals and
expectations for an existing employee and that, at least if the employee so requests, those
goals and expectations may be kept confidential. But these points apply to personal
performance targets, not to the basic job description, which is a matter of public record
23
and can be created or altered only in open session. An employees performance reviews
should normally occur only once a year; a more frequent series may be a signal that for
whatever reason the employee is not meeting the bodys expectations and may be on
virtual probation. No post-session announcement is required concerning evaluation,
although sometimes the agenda listing discussed immediately below will follow, either at
the same or the next meeting, and may involve the same person if his or her performance
is found wanting.
Suggestion: If the body has set goals or objectives for performance of a
new hire, those should be public, since they will shed no light on that employees past
performance.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE
No further specifics are required for this agenda listing. If action is taken to discipline the
employee short of dismissal, demotion or transfer, it need not be reported publicly (but
see the public records disclosure note below). Any dismissal action in closed session
must be reported out at the same meeting, specifying the position title, unless the
employee has the right to appeal the dismissal to the bodya right that would not apply
to an agency executive employed by contract.
If this kind of closed session follows closely on the evaluation session listed above, the
chances are it pertains to the same person. The chances are also good that since the body
has authority to discipline or dismiss only an employee reporting directly to it (most
employees report to the chief executive officer except in very small agencies), a dismissal
approved in this closed session will be of that chief executive.
Chief executives in all but the smallest public agencies will be contract employees, and
this can make firing them midstream expensive unless they are dismissed for cause
conviction of a crime or other improper behavior, including willful insubordination. In
that case, their employment contract will normally state they can be summarily dismissed
with no severance pay, although such a move risks a lawsuit by the fired executive,
challenging the authenticity of the cause prompting the termination. On the other hand,
an executives contract will often provide that a termination without cause, which
eliminates the lawsuit threat, will require payment of six, 12 or even 18 months salary,
and often benefits as well. Since this kind of contract payout is a matter of compensation,
however, it should not be discussed in a closed session on dismissal or release, but rather
under the heading below.
Suggestion: If an employee appears to have been disciplined or
discharged as the result of a complaint of serious wrongdoing and an investigation
confirming the complaint, submit a California Public Records Act request for a copy of
the complaint, any related investigative findings and any communication to the employee
of disciplinary action to be taken. The courts have repeatedly concluded that such
documentation of an agencys handling of serious misconduct complaints is a matter of
public record. Accordingly, the often-heard agency statement, We cant discuss that
its personnel is not only irrelevant as a response to a request for records, but misleading
24
in implying that such information is somehow inherently confidential.

c. Employee Bargaining and Raises
The Brown Act permits closed sessions to allow an employing body to hear from and
instruct its labor negotiators in two distinct tracks with similar but not identical agenda
listings: employees represented in a union-like bargaining unit, and unrepresented
employeesmost significantly agency managers.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives:
Employee organization:
The listing must name both the bodys bargaining agent(s) to be consulted with in the
closed session and the bargaining unit that he or she is or will be negotiating with. Both
the agency and the employee organization have strong political motivations to keep the
public unaware of what is being negotiated until an agreement is locked in. The agency
often does not want pressure from the public to resist employee demands, and the
employee group never does. The Brown Act permits this type of closed session not only
for consultations between the body and its agentshearing progress reports on
bargaining and issuing further instructionsbut for the actual final approval of an
agreement.
School and community college district boards, subject to a different employee
relations law, are required to be more open. As the California Supreme Court has noted,
Initial contract proposals made by both sides must be presented at a public meeting and
thereafter become matters of public record. The public must be allowed a reasonable time
to become informed of the proposals and to express its views at a public meeting prior to
commencement of employer-employee negotiation. Any new subject introduced into the
collective bargaining process must be made public within 24 hours and the public must
be informed of any votes cast upon the subject by the employer. Thus, although the public
is excluded from actual negotiating sessions its opportunity to be fully informed and to
express its views is preserved.
San Mateo City School District v. Public Employment Relations Board, 33 Cal.3d 850
(1983).
Suggestion: Once employee group bargaining has begun, cite the CPRA
to request copies of all documents that the bodys bargaining agents have shared with or
received from the employee unit since the commencement of the current round of
negotiations. The agency cannot argue that disclosure would expose its confidential
negotiating strategy, because this information either comes from the employee unit or has
already been provided to it. These records will, however, serve the same publics interest
in an opportunity to be fully informed and to express its views referred to by the
Supreme Court with respect to school employee bargaining.
When approval of a memorandum of understanding or other agreement with a labor
unit is reached in closed session the disclosure point will depend on whether the other
25
party must accept as well. If the bodys approval seals the agreement because it accepts
all of the demands sought by the labor unit, the body must report publicly, within the
same meeting, the substance of the agreement and the votes of the members, and must
provide a copy of the text of the agreement to any advance requesters.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives:
Unrepresented employee:
The listing applies to non-union employees. It must name both the bodys bargaining
agent(s) to be consulted with in the closed session and the title of the position of each
unrepresented employee whose salary and/or benefits are being negotiated. While the
category of unrepresented employees can include confidential employees such as
secretaries and administrative assistants, it will definitely include middle managers such
as department heads and the chief executive. The bodys bargaining agent could be either
a member of the body or an (unrepresented) employee such as a human resources
director. In the latter case the bodys agent should neither be an employee reporting to, or
with compensation tied to that of, an employee in the group being bargained with. Unlike
the negotiations with represented employees, any final action on the compensation of
unrepresented employees must be taken in open session.
This has two key consequences. The first is that the approval of a raise or other
compensation improvement for unrepresented employees, which must be done in open
session, will be reflected in some kind of prepared written recommendation, which
should be part of the agenda packet and availableat least upon requestas soon as it is
available to members of the body. The second consequence is that if the compensation
approval is part of a severance agreement such as is typical in a without cause
termination (see 4 (b) (3) above), it should likewise be done in open session, flagged on
the agenda and with the agreement text either in the agenda packet or available on request
prior to the meeting.
Suggestion: Once the listing above appears on a meeting agenda, be alert
for an open session item, appearing on the same agenda or that of the following meeting,
for approval of a contract for one or more unrepresented employees. Then request, as a
public record, a copy of any record made available to the body containing the terms of
the compensation for which approval is scheduled in open session. That information will
provide your only informed chance to react to proposed raises for individual employees
and express your views prior to the vote on their adoption.
d. Real Property
As with employee bargaining under (c), the Brown Act permits the body to confer behind
closed doors with its designated representative in negotiations to acquire or dispose of an
interest in real propertya parcel of land, a building, an easement, etc. The transfer
bargained for may be an outright purchase/sale, a lease, or some other transaction. For
26
this type of closed session the standard agenda listing is

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property:
Here the notice must list the street address of the property, or if not on a street, its parcel
numbersome unique locator.
Agency negotiator:
The names of those to confer with the body in closed session.
Negotiating parties:
The name of the person or entity the body is dealing with; the principal, not the agent.
Under negotiation:
Here the notice must specify whether the instruction to the negotiator will concern price,
terms of payment, or both.
As that last phrasing echoes, this type of closed session permits the discussion to concern
only price and terms of payment. So far, most local bodies interpret terms of
payment to include any factor that might affect the price in any way, or any term besides
price being sought in the transaction. No appellate court has ruled on this broad
interpretation, although the Attorney General has concluded in a published opinion that
the price and terms of payment language must be read narrowly, to embrace only
the amount of consideration that the local agency is willing to pay or accept in exchange
for the real property rights to be acquired or transferred in the particular transaction; (2)
the form, manner, and timing of how that consideration will be paid; and (3) items that
are essential to arriving at the authorized price and payment terms, such that their public
disclosure would be tantamount to revealing the information that the exception permits to
be kept confidential.
As an example of category three, the opinion would allow discussion of

the range of possibilities for payment that the agency might be willing to accept,
including how low or how high to start the negotiations with the other party, the
sequencing and strategy of offers or counteroffers, as well as various payment
alternatives. Information designed to assist the agency in determining the value of the
property in question, such as the sales or rental figures for comparable properties, should
also be permitted, because that information is often essential to the process of arriving at
a negotiating price.
Opinion No. 10-206 (2011).

The body may not only discuss negotiations with its agent in closed session, it may
actually approve the deal there. If its approval seals the agreement because it accepts all
of the terms offered by the other party, the body must report publicly, within the same
meeting, the substance of the agreement and the votes of the members, and must provide
27
a copy of the text of the agreement to any advance requesters .

Suggestion: As with employee group bargaining, once real property
negotiations appear on the agenda in a closed session notice, begin citing the CPRA to
request copies of all documents that the bodys bargaining agents have shared with or
received from the other party since the commencement of negotiations. Repeat the
request as negotiations continue.
28
Government Information and the Public

Records Act
Check the full, up-to-date text of the law at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=62506270
The Basics: Frequently Asked Questions

What is the California Public Records Act?
The CPRA is the state statute that requires state and local government agencies to allow
journalists and anyone else to inspect (look at, listen to) or obtain a copy of the agency s
documents, unless some specific law exempts the document from public disclosure.
Does the CPRA apply to federal records?
No. The law that does is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted by Congress in
1966. Extensive information on FOIA and how to use it can be found at:
the U.S. Department of Justice, which lists the FOIA web pages of many federal
departments and agencies
a Department of Justice listing of reference materials produced by itself and others
a FOIA guide developed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
a FOIA guide developed by Ralph Naders Public Citizen
Does the CPRA apply to all records in state and local government?
No. It does not apply to, and should not be cited to request disclosure of information by:
the courts, whose records of proceedings are however presumed to be public under
common law, and whose administrative records are presumed public under the California
Rules of Court; or
the Legislature, which is however subject to the Legislative Open Records Act,
Government Code 9070-9080; or
non-governmental entities such as business or nonprofit corporations, unless they are
also subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act because they either
were created by a local government agency to perform a public function
outsourced by that agency, or
have on their board a voting director who is also a member of the governing
body of a public agency that funds them. Government Code 6252, subdivision (b).
Must I have a need to know in order to have access to records
under the CPRA?
No. The most fundamental CPRA rule is the presumption of public access. Requesters
do not have to prove or even state a need to know to justify access. On the contrary, the
29
government agency must justify not providing the information by citing the law: a statute
or a case interpreting a statute. In other words, all public records are subject to
disclosure unless the Legislature has expressly provided to the contrary. Williams v.
Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337, 346 (1993). Its not our policy or We never give that
out is not an adequate response to a public records request, nor is anything else short of
citing the law that allows denial of access.
Must I make my CPRA access request in writing?
No. To be sure, a written request often has advantages for the requester as well as the
agency. Practically, it may be necessary where an oral request has been turned down for
what appear to be inadequate or misinformed reasons, or where the kind or number of
documents being sought needs detailed description. Legally, a written request sent by email, fax or registered postal mail provably records the date when certain response
deadlines are set, and also entitles the requester to a written response from the agency
giving the reasons and legal authority for withholding all or part of the requested records.
But, as noted by one court, It is clear from the requirements for writings in the same and
other provisions of the Act that when the Legislature intended to require a writing, it did
so explicitly. . . The California Public Records Act plainly does not require a written
request. Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, 88
Cal.App.4th 1381, 1392 (2001). For a sample CPRA request letter, see page 50.
Must I identify myself in making an access request?
Not usually. Generally the law permits an anonymous request. It requires identification
(by a signed affirmation or declaration, respectively) only when the requester is seeking
information about pesticides (Government Code 6254.2) or seeking the addresses of
persons arrested or crime victims (Government Code 6254, subdivision (f), paragraph
(3)). Practically, it may be mutually convenient for a requester to provide contact
information if the request cannot be fulfilled immediately or if copying will take some
time, but the requesters option is to keep checking back on his or her own initiative.
Legally, apart from the two situations noted above, an agency may not insist that the
requester be identified.
Must I reveal my purpose in making an access request?
No. Demanding to know the purpose of the request or the intended use of the
information is, again, not something the agency may do, except for the pesticide and
address provisions noted in the previous answer. The CPRA states, in Government Code
6257.5: This chapter does not allow limitations on access to a public record based
upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise
subject to disclosure.
How well must I describe what Im looking for?
Unquestionably, stated the California Court of Appeal in California First Amendment

30
Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 159, 165 (1998),

public records must be described clearly enough to permit the agency to determine
whether writings of the type described in the request are under its control. (The CPRA)
compels an agency to provide a copy of nonexempt records upon a request which
reasonably describes an identifiable record, or information produced therefrom . . .
However, the requirement of clarity must be tempered by the reality that a requester,
having no access to agency files, may be unable to precisely identify the documents
sought. Thus, writings may be described by their content. The agency must then
determine whether it has such writings under its control and the applicability of any
exemption. An agency is thus obliged to search for records based on criteria set forth in
the request.
Can I require the agency to compile a list or write a report?
No. The rights provided in the law are to inspect public records and/or to obtain a
copy of those records, which may consist of printed documents or audio, video or
digital files containing words, data, symbols or images, including e-mail. The inspection
and copying rights, however, do not to compel the agency to create lists or reports in
response to questions. In only one instance is the agency required to generate a record
that may not already exist, and that is if the information sought is stored in a computer
database or otherwise and must be assembled in a single record. As provided in
Government Code 6253.9, if the agency cannot produce or construct the record
sought without special programming, the requester must pay for that work.
Must the agency help me make an effective request?
Yes, to the extent possible. Government Code 6253.1 states:

(a) When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of
a public record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a
focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or
records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are
responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
(2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.
(3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the
records or information sought.
(b) The requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be deemed to have been
satisfied if the public agency is unable to identify the requested information after making
a reasonable effort to elicit additional clarifying information from the requester that will
help identify the record or records.
What can I be charged a fee for: Inspection? Copying?
The Attorney General has published an opinion concluding that counties (in particular)
may charge a fee reasonably necessary to recover wider costs for copying public
recordscosts beyond the strict direct cost of duplication. But the opinion observes
that inspection itself is free: In any event, a reasonably necessary fee for a copy of a
31
public record would have no effect upon the public's right of access to and inspection of
public records free of charge. 85 OpsCal.Atty.Gen. 225 (2002).
The general rule in Government Code 6253, subdivision (b) is that the agency may
charge only a statutory feeone expressly set by the Legislature, or by an agency that
the Legislature has expressly authorized to set its own copying feesor otherwise only
the direct cost of duplication, which may not include overhead. The direct cost of
duplication is the cost of running the copy machine, and conceivably also the expense of
the person operating it. Direct cost does not include the ancillary tasks necessarily
associated with the retrieval, inspection and handling of the file from which the copy is
extracted. North County Parents Organization v. Department of Education, 23
Cal.App.4th 146, 148 (1994).
How soon must my request get a response?
Delay is allowed only to resolve good faith doubts as to whether all or part of a record is
accessible by the public. So, for example, if the requester asks to see the minutes of
public meetings, there is no need to make the determination as to whether or not they
are public, since minutes of public meetings are, without question, public records. That
being the case, access is to be provided promptly, not put off for 10 days. Government
Code 6253, subdivision (b). To underscore this point, subdivision (d) states that
Nothing in (the CPRA) shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the
inspection or copying of public records.
Moreover, while the 10-day period is not a legal deadline for producing the records,
the date of production should not lag the 10-day determination point by much, because
in most if not all cases, the person making the determination will have already had to
assemble and review the records in order to do so. Once the determination has been
made, in other words, actual release of the records in question should not take much more
time. The 10-day period can be extended somewhat but only under limited circumstances
as specified in subdivision (c):
In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by
written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the
request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a
determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would
result in an extension for more than 14 days. When the agency dispatches the
determination, and if the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public
records, the agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records will be
made available. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances" means the following,
but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular
request:
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other
establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.
(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of
separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.
(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with
another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among
two or more components of the agency with substantial subject matter interest therein.
32
Is an exemption from disclosure a prohibition on access?
Not usually. The main exemption section in the Act, for exampleGovernment Code
6254does not prohibit disclosure of the records it lists, but simply provides that
nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of them. Accordingly
officials misstate the law in many cases when they say, We cant give that out. It
depends on the particular rule governing a particular type of information; if the language
is not expressly worded to forbid general public access, then any limitation on access
must be read as allowing the agency discretion to provide access.
May the agency restrict access to certain favored members of the
public?
No. Generally, once a particular record has been provided to a member of the public,
access may not be denied to others, even though an exemption might have otherwise
applied. Government Code 6254.5. A member of the public is anyone other than a
governmental officer, employee or agent receiving the record in his or her official
capacity. So, for example, an inspection, audit or investigation report, which would
normally be exempt from disclosure as the record of a law enforcement investigation,
once shared with the subject investigated would, in all but a handful of cases, be a public
record. Section 6254.5 provides, however, that the waiver is not created by a disclosure:
of records about a person to that person, as required under the Information Practices
Act (a privacy law found in Civil Code Section 1798);
made through other legal proceedings or as otherwise required by law, for
example in pre-litigation discovery;
within the scope of disclosure of a statute which limits disclosure of specified
writings to certain purposes, for example certain criminal history information made
available to prospective employers of those who work closely with children;
not required by law, and prohibited by formal action of an elected legislative body
of the local agency which retains the writings;
made to any governmental agency which agrees to treat the disclosed material as
confidential;
made to regulated business organizations, for the purpose of encouraging corrective
action, by state agencies regulating financial institutions, by the Commissioner of
Financial Institutions, and by the Departments of Corporations and Managed Health
Care.
If part of a record is exempt, may all of it be withheld?
Not usually. Under Government Code 6253, subdivision (a), any non-exempt (public)
part of a record must be made available after any exempt information has been redacted
(removed or obliterated). This rule applies unless redaction is impossible because the
public and confidential material are so tightly interwoven as to be inextricably
intertwined Northern California Police Practices Project v. Craig, 90 Cal.App.3d 116,
33
124 (1979), or unless multiple redactions applied to a large number of requested records
would leave them so bereft of substantive information relevant to the requesters purpose
that the benefit to him or her would be marginal and speculative. ACLU Foundation of
Northern California Inc. v. Deukmejian, 32 Cal. 3d 440, 453 (1982).
Are draft documents exempt from disclosure as such?
No. The word draft, even if accurately descriptive of a document, does not exempt it
from disclosure. Government Code 6254, subdivision (a) applies only to preliminary
drafts, notes or memos that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course
of business, provided that the public interest in withholding those records clearly
outweighs the public interest in disclosure. But the exemption applies only if the record
was created to inform or advise a particular administrative or executive decision. Also,
the document must be customarily disposed of: If preliminary materials are not
customarily discarded or have not in fact been discarded as is customary they must be
disclosed. Finally, the exemption applies only to the recommendatory opinion of its
author, making a judgment or offering advice as a conclusion based on a set of facts
which remain accessible to the public. Only the authors conclusion is protected. Citizens
for A Better Environment v. Department of Food and Agriculture, 171 Cal. App. 3d 704
(1985).
Are litigation-related records exempt permanently?
No. Government Code 6254, subdivision (b) exempts Records pertaining to pending
litigation to which the public agency is a party, or to claims . . . until the pending
litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled. This exemption
includes communications between the agency and its attorney, which are privileged in
any event as long as the agency wishes to assert the privilege. Otherwise, a document is
protected from disclosure only if it was specifically prepared for use in litigation, for
example if ordered by a public agency lawyer in response to an incident likely to provoke
a lawsuit. City of Hemet v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1420 (1995) The claim
itself (submitted by a potential plaintiff) is not exempt. Poway Unified School District v.
Superior Court, 62 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1505 (1998). And when a case has been fully
adjudicated (no further appeal possible) or settled, records covered by this exemption that
are not communications between the agency and its attorney are no longer exempt.
What kind of information can be withheld to protect personal
privacy?
The CPRA allows withholding the contents of Personnel, medical, or similar files, the
disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Government Code 6254, subdivision (c). The rule covers more than personnel files
and reaches any information in government records linked to an identified or readily
identifiable individual. But it allows withholding only where the person in question has
34
an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, which would not apply, for example, to
rsum-type information as to the education, training, experience, awards, previous
positions and publications of a public employee. Eskaton Monterey Hospital v. Myers,
134 Cal.App.3d 788, 794 (1982). Even when a privacy expectation would be normally
reasonable, disclosure may be justifiedwarrantedand required if the public interest
in having it known outweighs the public interest to the contrary. For example, when a n
official denied taking an unlawful personnel action, access to records proving it then
became in the public interest. Braun v. City of Taft, 154 Cal.App.3d 332, 343 (1984).
Are the exact earnings of named government workers public or
private?
If the employee is so senior as to have his or her own employment contract, that
document is public without exception under Government Code 6254.8. As for the more
typical employee who was not hired by contract, the California Supreme Court has held
that pay and other compensation of named state and local government employees,
including peace officers absent some extraordinary risk to their safety, is also a matter of
public record. International Federation of Technical and Professional Engineers, Local
21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (2007).
Are complaints
confidential?
about
and
discipline
of
public
employees
Complaints about the performance of public employees other than peace officers are
public if they lead to disciplinary action, (American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees v. Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal.App.3d 913
(1978)) or even if, discipline or not, documents available to the court reveal sufficient
indicia of reliability to support a reasonable conclusion that the complaint was wellfounded. Bakersfield City School District v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.4th 1041
(2004). Public agency executives, with diminished privacy expectations, may have
complaints and charges against them exposed to the public even if they prove largely
unsubstantiated, to allay public concerns that they are being allowed to resign under a
sweetheart deal allowing them to evade accountability. BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court ,
143 Cal.App.4th 742 (2006).
What about access to police and sheriffs officers personnel
records?
The contents of those and other peace officers personnel files are made confidential by
Penal Code 832.7, which leaves them exempt from disclosure under the CPRA and
accessible only in judge-filtered discovery by a criminal defendant or by a civil plaintiff
suing for the officers alleged misconduct or excessive force. City of Hemet v. Superior
Court, 37 Cal.App.4th 1411 (4th Dist. 1995). This confidentiality has also been held to
apply to information maintained by public agencies other than the officers employer, if it
had been provided to them by that employer. Commission on Peace Officer Standards &
Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278 (2007). But that case also held that an
officers name, employing agency and dates of hire and separation, if any, are public
35
information. The state Supreme Court has also held that the protection for officer
personnel files was meant by the Legislature to apply to administrative proceedings for
appeal of discipline, whether conducted within or outside the employing department, and
that civil service commission hearings involving officer discipline appeals were,
accordingly, required to be held privately. Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39
Cal.4th 1272 (2006).
Which law enforcement information is exempt from disclosure?
The CPRAs law enforcement records exemption in Government Code 6254,

subdivision (f) is comprehensive and although discretionary, seldom waived. With respect
to police and other criminal justice law enforcement agencies, it applies to records that
encompass only those investigations undertaken for the purpose of determining whether
a violation of law may occur or has occurred. If a violation or potential violation is
detected, the exemption also extends to records of investigations conducted for the
purpose of uncovering information surrounding the commission of the violation and its
agency. Haynie v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1071 (2001). But the exemption
also applies to any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local
agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes, including
investigations by state or local regulatory agencies. If an investigation does not have one
of these purposes, the exemption does not apply to its records. Register Division of
Freedom Newspapers Inc. v. County of Orange, 158 Cal. App. 3d 893 (1984). The
exemption may be asserted no matter how old and dead the investigation may be.
Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337 (1993).
But unless disclosure would threaten the successful completion of an investigation or
the safety of a person involved, an agency must disclose the basic
who/what/where/when facts in crime, incident and arrest reports and requests for
assistance such as 911 calls. This basic information disclosure mandate is just thatit
does not require providing inspection or copies of original law enforcement records
themselves, but rather some form of access to specified information from those records.
In terms of time, it applies at least with respect to contemporaneous police activity,
although months or years of arrest reports need not be provided to obtain information
about an officers long-term performance that would otherwise be confidential. County of
Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.App.4th 588 (1993). The facts that must be
disclosed pursuant to Government Code 6254, subdivision (f), paragraphs (1) and (2),
unless to do so would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation
or . . . endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation
are:
(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the
individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height
and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the
arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time
and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all
charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other
jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.
36
(2) . . . the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance
received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the
extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident
investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of
the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the
crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons
involved. The name of a victim of any (sexual assault, child, elder or spousal abuse or
hate crime) may be withheld at the victim's request, or at the request of the victim's
parent or guardian if the victim is a minor.
Must I sign something or show credentials to get access?
No. The sole requirements for a signed statement in this context apply only to obtain the
current address of a person arrested or a victim of a crime (other than a sexual assault,
child or elder abuse offense or hate crime). Under Government Code 6254, subdivision
(f), paragraph (3), these addresses are available only to a requester who declares under
penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or
governmental purpose, or that the request is made by a licensed private investigator for
investigation purposes. But the Attorney General has ruled that if a person declares that
the request is made for a journalistic purpose, the agency may not require that the
requester present subscriber lists, distribution lists, copies of past publications, or proof of
membership in a press trade association; display a press identification permit issued by a
California law enforcement agency; or qualify as a journalist in a judicial action.
Moreover, a related requirement that address information not be used directly or
indirectly, or provided to someone else, to sell a product or service does not require the
requester to monitor subscribers or readers and prohibit them from using the information
for commercial purposes. 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 97 (2006).
Are the CPRA exemptions the only legal bases for withholding?
No. Numerous other laws outside the CPRA either prohibit disclosure of certain
information, limit its disclosure to certain persons, purposes or both, or give the agency
discretion over release. Moreover, the Evidence Code contains a number of privileges
that allow information to be withheld even from a court proceeding. The CPRA
incorporates these laws and privileges as exemptions from disclosure. Government Code
6254, subdivision (k).
The attorney-client privilege, for example, allows
communications between a public agency and its lawyers to be kept confidential. But a
federal court has observed that the identity of the client, the amount of the fee, the
identification of payment by case file name, and the general purpose of the work
performed are usually not protected by the privilege. Clarke v. American Commerce
National Bank, 974 F.2d 127 (1992).
The official information privilege allows a public official to withhold information
submitted to him or her in confidence, until and unless it has been expressly relied upon
in the making of a decision, if the public interest in such secrecy outweighs the public
interest in disclosure. San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.3d 762 (1983).
Government agencies may conceivably acquire business or industry information
37
protected by the trade secret privilege, but apart from customer lists, why a business
would supply such highly sensitive information to a public agency is hard to imagine. For
the privilege to apply, the formula, pattern, compilation, process, device, method, etc.
must derive independent value from not being known to the public or a competitor, and
must be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy otherwise. Civil Code
3426.1, subdivision (d).
Can a record be withheld even if not expressly exempted by some
law?
Yes. Even if no specific exemption in the CPRA applies, information may be withheld
by demonstrating . . . that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by
not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the
record. Government Code 6255. As the wording suggests, this balancing test
exemption is applicable only on a case-by-case basis. In particular a targeted request for a
particular record will be circumstantially easier to justify in the public interest than a
wholesale request for a large volume of records. ACLU Foundation of Northern
California Inc. v. Deukmejian, 32 Cal.3d 440 (1986), Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court,
53 Cal.3d 1325 (1991).
What is the deliberative process privilege?
This common law privilege has been recognized as supporting, in certain circumstances,
a withholding of access under the balancing test (see question above). Its rationale is
the same as that underlying the draft exemption, namely the need of government officials
and their advisors to discuss policy options freely and frankly in the course of developing
a decision, without fear of political recrimination upon disclosure. But unlike the draft
exemption with its limited application, the privilege invoked under the balancing test
applies to documents that are not preliminary drafts or memos but that otherwise would
impede or chill candid pre-decisional deliberation. Cases applying the privilege in a
balancing test to deny disclosure have concluded that:
The chill on the candor and effectiveness of the governors consultations with visitors
resulting from wholesale disclosure of his appointment calendars, and the risk to his
security posed by wholesale disclosure of his travel itineraries, outweigh the arguable
public interest in understanding patterns of access to and influences affecting states chief
executive. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (1991).
With respect to a request filed while an appointment decision is pending, avoiding
interference with the governors prerogative to make appointments to fill vacancies on
boards of supervisors that would result from disclosing information submitted by
applicants for appointment outweighs the voters interest in knowing who is applying for
the normally elective position and what qualifications they are citing in their favor.
California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 159 (1998).
With respect to a request for such records filed five months after the governor made
the appointive decision, the same factors outweigh the voters interest in an appointment
to the board of a county emerging from bankruptcy. Wilson v. Superior Court, 51
38
Cal.App.4th 1136 (1997).

Disclosing the telephone numbers of persons with whom a city council member has
spoken over a years time equates to revealing the substance or direction of the members
judgment and mental process, and the inhibiting intrusion posed by such disclosures
outweighs the public interest in learning which private citizens are influencing the
members decisions. This holds especially where no misuse of public funds or other
improprieties are alleged. Rogers v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.4th 469 (1993).
The deliberative process privilege as a basis for withholding records may have been
substantially weakened by Proposition 59 of 2004, whose ballot argument included the
following:
What will Proposition 59 do? It will create a new civil right: a constitutional right to
know what the government is doing, why it is doing it, and how. It will ensure that public
agencies, officials, and courts broadly apply laws that promote public knowledge. It will
compel them to narrowly apply laws that limit openness in governmentincluding
discretionary privileges and exemptions that are routinely invoked even when there is no
need for secrecy. It will create a high hurdle for restrictions on your right to information,
requiring a clear demonstration of the need for any new limitation. It will permit the
courts to limit or eliminate laws that don't clear that hurdle. It will allow the public to see
and understand the deliberative process through which decisions are made. (Emphasis
added)
Beyond the Basics: What to Watch and Ask for

1. Money Issues
Follow the money was the advice the shadowy source Deep Throat supposedly gave
Woodward and Bernstein to guide their legendary reportorial investigation of the
Watergate scandal. While doing so will seldom uncover crime in government, it can
disclose surprising and sometimes questionable uses of public funds. All the following
documentation is disclosable under the California Public Records Act.
a. Employment Contracts
Only the top employees in local government work under a written contract, but it can
entitle the employee not only to a salary but also to benefits including performance
bonuses, health and/or other insurance, a car, moving expenses, memberships in
professional associations, clubs and community organizations and the like. As for local
government compensation generally, see the State Controllers website. Although that list
shows no names, it can be compared with the agencys personnel roster, a public record,
which lists names and titles.
b. Loans
Although not necessarily mentioned in the employment contract, key executives in an

agency are sometimes provided with loans at more favorable terms than they would get
on the market. Pursuant to the Brown Act, any such loan would have to approved in an
39
open session of the agencys governing body.

c. Credit Cards and Expense Reimbursements
Whether the expenses incurred by employees for official business are handled by agency
credit cards or by specific advances or reimbursements acquired by application, the date,
location and merchandise or service purchased should be documented in public records,
as well as the purpose of the expenditure. As interpreted by the Attorney General, state
laws allowing local government officials to obtain reimbursement from their agencies for
"actual and necessary expenses" incurred in doing their jobs do not allow them to treat
non-government guests to meals on the public tab. For example, Education Code Section
44032 states: "The governing board of any school district shall provide for the payment
of the actual and necessary expenses, including traveling expenses, of any employee of
the district incurred in the course of performing services for the district, whether within
or outside the district, under the direction of the governing board."
In a 1978 published opinion, the Attorney General concluded that the statutory phrase
actual and necessary expenses did not include meals purchased for community leaders
even though the purchase was "deemed to be for the benefit of and in the best interest of a
school district. The restriction is not limited to school employees. The Attorney General
has more recently concludedand this would extend to any outlays of public funds,
whether through reimbursements or credit card chargesthat "(p)ublic funds of a general
law city may not be expended to reimburse city council members for their expenses in
purchasing meals for third parties, such as constituents, legislators and private business
owners, at meetings held to discuss legislation or other matters of benefit to the city. If
the charter so authorizes, public funds of a charter city may be expended for such
purposes." The law the A.G. was interpreting is Government Code Sections 53232
through 53232.4, which also govern county supervisors, school board trustees and special
district directors. Reimbursement may be provided only pursuant to a specific policy
approved by the governing body in a public meeting.
d. Merchandise and Service Contracts; Leases
These agreements to pay public funds for value received may document the most
significant expenditures other than agency personnel costs. They sometimes raise
collateral issues such as whether the contract or lease was required to go to bid or was at
the discretion of an agency body or official. If the former, all bids or RFPs should be
open to public review prior to an award. If the latter, the Form 700 Statement of
Economic Interests of the official(s) with award discretion can be cross-checked, as well
as the sources of political contributions to the campaigns of any such elected officials
(see Integrity Issues > Economic Interests below).
e. Check or Warrant Registers
These lists sometimes disclose expenditures not included in the categories above that
merit further inquiry. They must be approved by the agencys governing body at an open
meeting, but may be tucked into a consent agenda.
40
2. Integrity Issues
a. Economic Interests
Are people in government lining their own or their spouses pockets in making decisions
about spending public funds? How would anyone know without knowing what those
officials income sources are? As summarized by the Fair Political Practices Commission
(FPPC),
The Political Reform Act (Gov. Code Sections 81000-91014) requires most state and
local government officials and employees to publicly disclose their personal assets and
income. They also must disqualify themselves from participating in decisions that may
affect their personal economic interests. The FPPC is the state agency responsible for
issuing the Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700, and for interpreting the laws
provisions.
Statements of Economic Interests are public documents. The filing officer must permit
any member of the public to inspect and receive a copy of any statement.
Statements must be available as soon as possible during the agency's regular business
hours, but in any event not later than the second business day after the statement is
received.
No conditions may be placed on persons seeking access to the forms.
No information or identification may be required from persons seeking access.
Reproduction fees of no more than 10 cents per page may be charged.
Each local agency must appoint a filing officer responsible to provide access to the
Form 700s and to see that these statements are filed and updated on schedule. The
agency must also adopt a conflict of interest code that designates which employees are
subject to it. Essentially these are persons responsible for making, or contributing to the
decision to make, significant public expenditures. Some consultants with substantial
ongoing decisional authority must also file Form 700s. For detailed explanations of the
officials disclosure obligations, see http://www.fppc.ca.gov/Form700.html.
b. Political Contributors
Whose campaign contributions have been made to whom, and how much was given?
This information is required to be filed periodically by local candidates and committees.
The various reports required to be filed as public records (under the same access
mandates as apply to the Form 700s above) are described at
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/campaign-rules.html. These reports are to be filed with the
city clerk in the case of city elections, and with the county clerk in the case of county,
school district or special district elections. If a district sprawls over county lines, its
reports must be filed with the larger countys clerk. A number of cities and counties have
enacted their own local campaign ordinances to supplement state law. They are found at
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/campaign-rules/local-campaign-ordinances.html.
c. Ethics Training
Under a law familiarly known as AB 1234, most elected local officials (but not school or
community college district trustees or members of a county board of education) who get
paid for their service are required to undergo periodic training in the ethics and open
41
government laws that pertain to them, and to publicly report when they have done so.
They can take the training through self-studyincluding onlinebut if the majority of
members of a local body subject to the Brown Act do so in a meeting, that meeting must
be properly noticed and conducted in public. Newly elected officials must complete their
training no later than one year after their first day of service in public office, and
thereafter must complete a training course once in each subsequent two-year period. The
officials must maintain records that indicate both the dates of training and the entity that
provided the training. These records are disclosable public records and must be available
for five years after the training. Full details on these requirements are found at
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/public-officials-and-employees-rules-/ethics-training.html.
3. Performance Issues
a. Litigation Claims and Settlements
Accidents happen; miscommunications occur; unforeseen challenges arise. Government

agencies and officials are no more immune from plain bad luck than organizations and
individuals in the private sector. Some of these mishaps prompt legal claims and either
litigation or settlement, and while most of these situations may not result from faulty
performance of duty, some of them may. In any case the questions arise as to whether
and how the accident, loss or other failure could have been prevented, and even more
importantly, what if anything is being done to prevent a recurrence. In short, the contents
of pre-litigation claims and litigation-avoiding settlements can be telling indicators of
how well a public agency has been performing, to what extent there have been clusters of
the same problems, and whether important lessons have been learned. Access to claim
and settlement documentsboth of which are public recordsis discussed on page 32.
b. Audits and Grand Jury Reports
Pursuant to the following statutes, most local public agencies must have heir books
audited annually, with the audit reports available as public records:
Government Code Section 36525 (b)
City Audits
Government Code Sections 26908.5, 26909
County and Special District Audits
Government Code Section 6505
Joint Powers Agency Audits
Education Code Section 35400 (f)
L.A. Unified School District
Inspector Generals Reports
In addition, local agencies may be audited by the State Auditor and/or the State
Controller, and their operations reviewed and reported on by the county grand jury.
c. State Auditor
The State Auditor may open audits, based on whistleblower information or otherwise,
into improper governmental activity of the fraud, waste and abuse kind. Also, according
to the State Auditors website,
Recent legislationAB 187, which went into effect in January 2012permits the
California State Auditor to develop a high-risk local government agency audit program
for the purpose of identifying, auditing, and issuing reports on any local government
42
agency, including a city, county, special district, or other publicly created entity, that the
State Auditor identifies as being at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement
or as having major challenges associated with its economy, efficiency, or effectiveness.
However, any audit that the State Auditor wishes to perform under this authority must be
authorized by the Legislature's Joint Legislative Audit Committee before it may move
forward.
Because this legislation just recently took effect, the program still is being developed.
Please check back periodically for updates regarding the implementation of this program.
As we establish protocols for the program, we will post the information on our Web site.
Ordinary State Auditor investigative findings are posted at http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports

d. State Controller
The State Controllers Office conducts three types of local government audits:
of local agencies reimbursement claims for state mandated costs, e.g. the Brown Act, at
http://www.sco.ca.gov/aud_mancost_la_costrpt.html;
of local agencies generally, at http://www.sco.ca.gov/serp.html?
q=audit+finding+follow+up&cx=001779225245372747843:jzcl_x9eh9w&cof=FORID:
10&ie=UTF-8; and
Special Reviews/Audits into selected local problems.
The Controller also conducts ongoing oversight of the adequacy of local school districts
independent audits, to satisfy federal standards for acceptable accounting practices. The
resulting list of discrepancies by county and school district, called the Entities with
Reasons Codes Report is found at
http://www.sco.ca.gov/aud_local_agency_oversight_local_govt_educ_k_12.html.
e. Grand Juries
In addition to their relatively rarely exercised criminal investigative proceedings,

California grand juries inquire into the operations of local government agencies and issue
findings and recommendations in their annual reports. This watchdog function may be
triggered by suggestions from prior year grand juries or individual grand jurors, or from
complaints or concerns submitted by citizens. To find the most recent years final reports
for your county, Google: _______ County Civil Grand Jury Final Report or check
your county grand jurys website at http://www.cgja.org/county-grand-jury-websites.
Records Preservation and Destruction

The state laws and regulations below govern records retention schedules of California
local agencies. Records intentionally destroyed (or altered or removed) contrary to these
laws may be cause for criminal prosecution under Government Code 6200-6201.
City Records
Minimum Retention Two Years: Government Code 34090 et seq.

County Records
43
Minimum Retention Two Years: Government Code 26202 et seq.

Community College District Records
Minimum Retention Three Years Plus: Title 5 California Code of Regulations, Division 6,
Chapter 10, Subchapter 2.5, 59023 et seq.
School District Records
Minimum Retention Three Years Plus: Title 5, California Code of Regulations, Division
1, Chapter 16, Subchapter 2, 16023 et seq.
Special District Records
No Minimum Retention Period: Government Code 60201.
44
Meetings and Records of Local Court

Administration
Full text at http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500
Introduction Each of Californias 58 counties has a superior court for the trial of
civil and criminal cases. They range in size from the smallest, a two-judge court in
Alpine County, to the largest single unified trial court system in the nation, in Los
Angeles County. Regardless of size, each superior court has its own administrative
routines, rules and procedures under the judicial branch governance structure of the
California Judicial Council and its executive arm, the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
Meetings
The larger superior courts have executive committees of judges that

handle the housekeeping decisions that keep the courtrooms staffed, supplied and
running. Unlike their counterparts in the non-judicial realm, howeverthe county
boards of supervisorsthese committees are not subject to the Brown Act or any other
open meeting statutes or court rules. But the recent experience of Californians Aware in a
survey is that the agendas and minutes of executive committee meetings are accessible to
the public under Rule of Court 10.500, discussed below.
Records Access to the records of civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions is

presumed as a matter of common law. But access to court administrative records is
provided by California Rule of Court 10.500.
What kinds of administrative records are available under the Rule?
The examples given in 10.500 (d) (2) are:

(A) Budget information submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts after
enactment of the annual Budget Act;
(B) Any other budget and expenditure document pertaining to the administrative
operation of the courts, including quarterly financial statements and statements of
revenue, expenditure, and reserves;
(C) Actual and budgeted employee salary and benefit information;
(D) Copies of executed contracts with outside vendors and payment information and
policies concerning goods and services provided by outside vendors without an
executed contract;
(E) Final audit reports; and
(F) Employment contracts between judicial branch entities and their employees.
45
This list is not exhaustive. In addition to these items, for example, any documents or
information referred to in a superior court executive committees agenda or minutes (see
above) would be presumed accessible unless some exemption from disclosure applied.
What are the applicable exemptions from disclosure under Rule
10.500?
They are modeled on, and as a whole quite comparable to, those found in the California
Public Records Act, often stated in provisions that are verbatim duplicates of that law.
While some exemptions are stated in broader terms, there has been no litigation as of
early 2013 interpreting what the differences amount to in practice.
How do I make a request for court administrative records?
Each superior court is supposed to post the desired procedures on its website, but
sometimes they are a challenge to find. If nothing else, a letter that simply cites Rule
10.500 and spells out the type of information being sought should suffice if addressed to
the court executive officer.
Will I be charged a fee for copies?
You may, although for a sole or infrequent request, modest in scope, for records ready to
hand, the fee may be waived. Rule 10.500 (d) states:
Costs of duplication, search, and review
(A) A judicial branch entity, on request, must provide a copy of a judicial administrative
record not exempt from disclosure if the record is of a nature permitting copying, subject
to payment of the fee specified in this rule or other applicable statutory fee. A judicial
branch entity may require advance payment of any fee.
(B) A judicial branch entity may impose on all requests a fee reasonably calculated to
cover the judicial branch entity's direct costs of duplication of a record or of production of
a record in an electronic format under subdivision (i). The fee includes:
(i) A charge per page, per copy, or otherwise, as established and published by the
Judicial Council, or as established by the judicial branch entity following a notice and
comment procedure specified by the Judicial Council, representing the direct costs of
equipment, supplies, and staff time required to duplicate or produce the requested
record; and
(ii) Any other direct costs of duplication or production, including, but not limited to, the
costs incurred by a judicial branch entity in retrieving the record from a remote storage
facility or archive and the costs of mailing responsive records.
Finances, Performance and Integrity

As indicated above, the examples of records given in Rule 10.500 (d) (2) as subject to
disclosure include many if not most standard financial and organization performance
accountability measures. As for personal performance, Rule 10.500 (f) (7) exempts
46
records related to evaluations of, complaints regarding, or investigations of justices,

judges (including temporary and assigned judges), subordinate judicial officers, and
applicants or candidates for judicial office . . .
While there is no comparable exemption in the California Public Records Act, complaints
against judges are processed and adjudicated by the Commission on Judicial
Performance, which is not subject to these rules and which is required to keep raw
complaints confidential until formal proceedings, if any, commence. California
Constitution Article 6, 18, subdivision (j). Thereafter, this provision says, the notice of
charges, the answer, and all subsequent papers and proceedings shall be open to the
public for all formal proceedings.
In addition, judges, court executive officers and other employees dealing with financial
matters are subject to the same requirements to file periodic statements of financial
interests (Form 700s) as non-judicial public officials. The can be requested either from
the court itself or the county clerk, and should be immediately available.
47
Sample Brown Act Demand to Cease and

Desist
a Violation
(Intended not to overturn an action taken but to see that a practice is not repeated)
DATE
NAME AND TITLE OF CLERK OR SECRETARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY
NAME OF AGENCY
STREET ADDRESS/PO BOX
CITY, CA, ZIP
RE: Demand to Cease and Desist: Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section
54950 et seq.)
Dear _______________,
This letter challenges a practice occurring in connection with the (date) meeting of the
(name of legislative body) of the (name of local agency) as a violation of the Brown Act,
specifically Government Code Section ____________. The practice in question was
(describe act or omission being alleged as a violation of the cited section).
In order to avoid the filing of an action against the (name of legislative body) for
declaratory and injunctive relief to confirm that the practice in question violated the
Brown Act and to order it not to be repeated, and for the recovery of any attorney fees
and costs incurred in such litigation, I demand that the (name of the presiding officer of
legislative body), within 30 days of the receipt of this letter and in conformity with
Government Code Section 54960.2, subdivision (c), inform me of the (name of
legislative bodys) unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the
practice herein challenged as a violation of the Act.
Very Truly Yours,
__________________
Postal Address
E-mail Address
Phone Number
48
cc:
Legal counsel for local agency
Sample Brown Act Demand to Cure/Correct a

Violation
(Intended to overturn an action taken)
DATE
NAME OF AGENCY
CITY, CA, ZIP
RE: Demand for Cure and Correction: Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section
54950 et seq.)
Dear _______________,
A substantial violation of a central provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act may, unless
cured and corrected, jeopardize the finality of the action taken by the (name of legislative
body) of the (name of local agency).
On (date) the (name of legislative body) took action by (description of action taken).
That action was not in compliance with the Brown Act because (Violation Option 1: it
occurred as the culmination of a discussion unlawfully held in closed session); (Violation
Option 2: it was the result of one or more non-public serial meetings or discussions of a
majority of the members of the (name of legislative body); and/or (Violation Option 3:
while occurring in an open and public meeting, there was no adequate notice to the public
on the posted agenda for the meeting that the matter acted upon would be discussed, and
there was no finding of fact made by the body that urgent action was needed on a matter
unforeseen when the agenda was posted).
Government Code Section 54952.6 defines "action taken" for the purposes of the Act
expansively, i.e. as "a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a
legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a
legislative body to make a positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority
of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion,
proposal, resolution, order or ordinance."
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.1, I demand that the (name of legislative
49
body) cure and correct the unlawfully taken action by (Correction Option 1: rescinding
the action taken, with notice to all immediately affected persons, and providing me, and
any other person on request, copies of all documents prepared for or distributed in the
unlawful closed session/serial meeting) and/or (Correction Option 2: rescinding the
action taken, with notice to all immediately affected persons, and if the matter is
rescheduled for a future meeting, providing adequate description of the matter on that
meetings agenda).
Government Code Section 54960.1 allows you 30 days from the receipt of this demand to
either cure or correct the challenged action or inform me of your decision not to do so. If
you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave me no recourse but to
seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged action pursuant to Section 54960.1, in
which case I would seek the award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to
Section 54960.5.
Very Truly Yours,
__________________
Postal Address
E-mail Address
Phone Number
cc:

Name of individual or organization awarded any contract as the result of
the challenged action, if applicable
50
Sample Public Records Act Request

DATE
NAME AND TITLE
AGENCY
CITY, CA, ZIP
RE: Request pursuant to California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250
et seq.)
Dear ____________________,
This letter is to request (to inspect/obtain a copy of) _______
As you probably know, the following legal rules apply to this request.
Prompt Disclosure: Government Code Section 6253 (b), (d)
Records not exempt from disclosure are to be made promptly available. No provision
of the CPRA, including the response periods noted below, shall be construed to permit
an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.
Deadlines: Government Code Section 6253 (c)
You are required promptly and in no case more than 10 calendar days from the date of
this request, to determine, and inform me in writing, whether you are going to decline all
or part of the request, and the law(s) that you are relying on, unless within that period you
notify me in writing that you intend to take up to an additional 14 days to make the
determination because of your need:
* to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other
establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
* to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate
and distinct records that are demanded in a single request;
* for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another
agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or
more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein; or
* to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to
construct a computer report to extract data.
Your notice must set forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a
determination is expected to be dispatched. If you determine that any of the records I
have requested are disclosable, your written notice must state the estimated date and
51
time when the records will be made available.

Constitutional Rule of Interpretation: Article I, Section 3 (b)
The California Constitution requires that the Public Records Act shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the
right of access. This rule must be heeded in interpreting any exemptions from disclosure
you believe to be applicable.
Fees: Government Code Section 6253 (b)
For copying you may charge only a fee covering direct costs of duplication, or a
statutory fee if applicable. The direct cost of duplication is the cost of running the copy
machine, and conceivably also the expense of the person operating it. Direct cost does
not include the ancillary tasks necessarily associated with the retrieval, inspection and
handling of the file from which the copy is extracted. North County Parents Organization
v. Department of Education, 23 Cal.App.4th 144, 148 (1994).
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. Please contact me using the
information below if you need further clarification.
Very Truly Yours,
__________________
Postal Address
E-mail Address
Phone Number
cc:

Citizen Watchdog Guide 12 21 15

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Citizen Watchdog Guide 12 21 15

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Sunshine laws like the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act (CPRA)

are in themselves no guarantee of preventing the kind of bureaucratic

journalists, fodder for public discussion by bloggers and other watchdogs,

FURTHER WATCHDOG CONNECTIONS

Sharing ideas and experiences in the CalAware Community Forum

Staying updated by signing on to CalAware Today

Following Terry@CalAware on Twitter

Supporting CalAware at no cost by making all your Amazon

Purchasing detailed CalAware Guides at Amazon.com

(c) 2015 Californians Aware

For help in overcoming transparency barriers, email info@calaware.org

Click on number to be taken to the

What legislative bodies does the Brown Act apply to?

When is there a meeting covered by the Act?

Does the Act allow out-of-town meetings?

Can the meeting place be relocated for emergencies?

How must Brown Act bodies publicize their meetings?

What notice is required for meetings held on a regular schedule?

What if action is taken or discussion is undertaken on off-agenda items?

What are the rules for public notice of special meetings?

What are the rules for public notice of emergency meetings?

When must copies of meeting-related documents be available?

Must the body allow public comment at regular meetings?

When may public comment be denied?

Must the body allow public comment at special meetings?

Must the body permit public comment on any matter?

May the body forbid comment on certain matters by the public?

(c) 2015 Californians Aware

For help in overcoming transparency barriers, email info@calaware.org

What topics may the body address in closed session?

What personnel discussions does the Act permit in closed session?

When must an employee be alerted to a closed session about him or her?

Are there limits on the pending litigation closed session?

Are there limits on a property negotiation closed session?

Are there limits on an employee bargaining closed session?

Must any disclosures be made before or after closed sessions?

When the Brown Act is violated, what court enforcement is available?

Is a knowing and deliberate violation of the Brown Act a crime?

Beyond the Basics: What to Watch and Ask for 16

2. Meetings off the Regular Schedule

3. Background Records Distributed to the Body

c. Employee Bargaining and Raises

(c) 2015 Californians Aware

For help in overcoming transparency barriers, email info@calaware.org

Government Information and the Public Records

Does the CPRA apply to federal records?

Must I make my CPRA access request in writing?

Must I identify myself in making an access request?

Must I reveal my purpose in making an access request?

How well must I describe what Im looking for?

Can I require the agency to compile a list or write a report?

Must the agency help me make an effective request?

What can I be charged a fee for: Inspection? Copying?

How soon must my request get a response?

Is an exemption from disclosure a prohibition on access?

If part of a record is exempt, may all of it be withheld?

Are draft documents exempt from disclosure as such?

Are litigation-related records exempt permanently?

What kind of information can be withheld to protect personal privacy?

Are the exact earnings of named government workers public or private?

Are complaints about and discipline of public employees confidential?

(c) 2015 Californians Aware

For help in overcoming transparency barriers, email info@calaware.org

Which law enforcement information is exempt from disclosure?