Last week The SUN ran an opinion piece by Robert Goldberg asking readers to ask me some questions. Please allow me to respond.
The first time I heard about the alleged Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) violation was from a non-profit entity contacted by Mr. Goldberg. The job of this non-profit (Cal-Aware.org) is to look for and potentially sue cities for Brown Act violations. It would seem that a fellow resident could have simply called me to discuss the matter rather than go to a special interest group. He has my number, it is on the city’s website and at the end of this letter.
I would have been happy to discuss it with him directly. As a result, I have asked our attorney and city manager to hold a Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) workshop for all to attend. This will ensure that the Council and Planning Commission are refreshed on the law and help interested residents understand this law as well. To be clear about the Brown Act, our attorney decides what is proper for closed session based upon law.
Not only does he, not the City Manager or City Council, make this decision. It is his job to monitor the closed session conversation and not allow the Council or staff to digress from the reason it was called. The law prescribes only a few, narrow reasons we can go into closed session and the law protects that session so that any leak from that meeting is a Brown Act violation in and of itself. This is to ensure a balance between the public’s right to know and the protection of the city from lawsuits.
So, I will answer what I can without violating the law. First you will all remember that I wrote and spoke at length about the pending legislation that would remove our representation from the OCFA Board. We pay $5 million a year for fire protection to OCFA and this legislation, AB 1217, was removing us from the board.
Having the ability to go into closed session is and was very important to the health of our city and its fire protection. Going into closed session on the legislation that would take away our representation was not only legal, it was necessary.
Taking away Seal Beach’s right to represent itself in determining how our fire protection dollars are spent, as well as other policy issues important to the City, could have resulted in litigation for various reasons.  These reasons may not have been known to other parties, but was a valid, lawful reason to be in closed session. There is still danger in haggling over this in public. This legislation could be brought back without notice any time this legislative year. I believe in transparency and openness and under the leadership of the Council and our City Manager, Ms. Ingram, have seen the implementation of many new efforts, among them are: our meetings now not only continue to be televised but are available and archived on the Internet; OpenGov is now on our website for anyone to explore our finances; city salaries have a direct link from the front page of the website; and we have a responsive staff to help the public retrieve public records.
We also have a newly redesigned website which provides for easier public access. The website is www.sealbeachca.gov.
I also believe in getting our $5 million worth of fire protection and will continue to fight to be sure we get what we are paying for. To do that we need a seat on the Board and that may require that we go into closed session to protect our town. That is not in conflict with the Brown Act, nor does it lack openness or transparency. Please call me when you have questions. Not everything can be put in an email or a letter to the editor or even my monthly eNewsletter. If after we talk you still think an outside special interest group should be called, OK.
But, at least give me an opportunity to tell you what I can. Thank you for the privilege of representing you.
Ellery Deaton represents District One (Old Town and Surfside) on the Seal Beach City Council. She may be reached at 562-743-4355.
