I think we the people need MORE information - which is why a wrote a letter to the mayor, asking that the city "cease and desist" from meeting about the CSC in closed sessions. Text of the letter is below (Lompoc Record article can be found here).
Dear Mayor Lingl,
I am concerned about actions that the Lompoc City Council
has taken regarding its Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the
California Space Center LLC (CSC). I
have several questions, mainly focused on the larger issue of whether or not
the City is actually negotiating in good faith, as the ENA requires. Further, I
have been frustrated and discouraged by the secrecy which has lately surrounded
the project.
In particular, I was surprised at the council’s decision of
September 15 to send the CSC a letter of default. I’d like more information about this
decision, but because it was made during a closed session of the council, such
information has not been made available.
In order to justify meeting about the CSC project in a closed
session, the city council has employed the “real property exception” that is
allowed by the Brown Act. (According to
Section 54956.8: Notwithstanding any other
provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency may hold a
closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or
lease of real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator
regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or
lease.)
However, I believe that the city has used the real property
exception improperly. Thus, it is my
contention that the City has violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, by discussing and
taking action regarding the ENA during a closed session. By this letter I
request that you cease and desist from the use of closed sessions to discuss
the California Space Center Project or the ENA, except in very narrow and specific
instances when the council’s purpose is “to grant authority to its negotiator
regarding the price and terms of payment” (as is allowed by law).
In Opinion No. 07-2012, the California Attorney General
quotes several State Supreme Court rulings to explain how the Brown Act should
be interpreted:
As
the Supreme Court has observed, the Brown Act was “adopted to ensure the
public’s right to attend the meetings of public agencies.” To effectuate this
purpose, the Brown Act “requires that the legislative bodies of local agencies
. . . hold their meetings open to the public except as expressly authorized by
the Act.” And, although the Brown Act contains express statutory exceptions
that authorize closed sessions to be held with regard to certain matters, these
exceptions are construed narrowly, while the Brown Act’s general command “in
favor of openness in conducting public business” is construed liberally. This
is so because statutory language “must be construed in the context of the
statutory framework as a whole, keeping in mind the policies and purposes of
the statute, and where possible the language should be read so as to conform to
the spirit of the enactment.” These rules of interpretation also implement and
further the state constitution’s directive that a statute or other legal authority
“shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and
narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” (The opinion quoted
above can be found at http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/07-1202.pdf)
The Attorney General has emphasized that the real property
exception is “narrowly crafted” and intended for use only when the purpose of
the session is “to inform or develop a negotiating strategy” prior to a real
estate transaction (from 93 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 51, ---, 2010 WL 2150433 as
quoted in a letter by the League of California Cities, found at https://www.cacities.org/Resources/Open-Government/LCC-Letter-re-AG-Request-10-206.aspx).
As noted,
The
need for executive [closed] sessions in this circumstance is obvious. No purchase
would ever be made for less than the maximum amount the public body would pay
if the public (including the seller) could attend the session at which that
maximum was set, and the same is true for minimum sale prices and lease terms
and the like. (Schwing, Open Meeting Laws § 7.76, 416-418, 1994, quoted at
http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/07-1202.pdf)
Clearly, the Lompoc City Council’s discussions and decisions
regarding the ENA with the CSC do not meet the narrow criteria for the real property
exception. The negotiating terms in this
case are already public and available to both sides of the negotiation, and
during the entire year of the ENA, there is no chance that the property in
question will be sold, leased, or otherwise conveyed.
As provided by Section 54960.2, you have 60 days from the
receipt of this letter to respond with “an unconditional commitment to cease,
desist from, and not repeat the past action.” If you fail to cease and desist,
such inaction may leave me no recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of
the challenged action pursuant to Section 54960.2, in which case I would also
ask the court to order you to pay my seek court costs and reasonable attorney
fees in this matter, pursuant to Section 54960.5.
Respectfully yours, Jane Behr
