Open and closed: Ad hoc committees are often exempt from California's open meetings law

On March 14, the Allan Hancock College board of trustee members unanimously censured fellow trustee Dan Hilker, who they say violated the board’s standards of practice.

The decision followed a finding by an ad hoc committee of two—Hancock trustees Larry Lahr and Jeffrey Hall—which was tasked with investigating Hilker. They discussed their findings in closed session with Hancock President Kevin Walthers.

Hancock officials won’t publicly discuss what they believe Hilker did. Not even Hilker will talk about it, although he did tell the Sun, “It was just one of those things where you get in there and you get full of yourself.”

click to enlarge Open and closed: Ad hoc committees are often exempt from  California's open meetings law
FILE PHOTO BY BRENNA SWANSTON
OPEN AND FREE: Lompoc held a series of open ad hoc meetings on transparency in 2016.

Forming ad hoc committees to discuss sensitive information is common in California among legislative bodies, and it’s totally legal. Literally meaning “for this” in Latin, ad hoc meetings are commonly formed for a specific purpose, and they’re usually temporary. The committees aren’t subject to the Brown Act, California’s open meetings law, which means their discussions don’t have to be open to the public, though reports and documents produced from them are, according to California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) attorney Nikki Moore.

Ad hoc meetings can address matters that include the budget, audits, contracts, and personnel matters, Moore said. Final decisions on these matters are left to the elected body for discussion in public view, she added.

If an ad hoc committee is made up of a majority of an elected body’s members, then it would be subject to the Brown Act and open to the public.

Other examples of recent ad hoc committees formed in Santa Barbara County include one the Lompoc City Council formed on Dec. 20 to research a proper recreational marijuana ordinance. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors formed an ad hoc committee for the same purpose and created another one to hash out issues with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians’ Camp 4 land.

Supervisors Das Williams and Joan Hartmann, who represent the 1st and 3rd districts respectively, compose the newest version of the ad hoc committee regarding Camp 4. Williams also serves on the Board of Supervisors’ ad hoc discussing recreational marijuana in the county, along with 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino and some county staff members, including Sheriff Bill Brown. Neither of the committees is open to the public.

Hartmann’s chief of staff, Jefferson Litten, wouldn’t say what was discussed in the most recent Chumash meetings, though he told the Sun that a statement on the committee’s progress would be provided soon.

According to Williams’ staffer Cameron Schunk, both supervisors on the marijuana ad hoc will likely present ideas for a possible marijuana grower’s registry at the April 4 supervisors meeting.

Though those closed ad hoc meetings are lawful because they aren’t held with the majority of the supervisors present, there are other instances when ad hoc committees are subject to the Brown Act.

When an individual member of an ad hoc acts as a conduit to relay information from the closed meeting to another elected official, it’s known as a “hub and spoke” and becomes a Brown Act violation if not made public, CNPA’s Moore said.

These are known as serial meetings, which are hard to prove, she said. Text messages and email chains are the easiest way to show they are happening.

As recently as March 2, the California Supreme Court ruled that emails and text messages discussing official business sent from personal devices between government officials are now public record.

“If you’re doing public business on a private device, then certainly the public would be interested in that,” Moore said. “It keeps the safeguards of the public records act and ensures you get that information.”

The first of Lompoc’s ad hoc meetings on recreational marijuana was held on Feb. 16 and as many as 30 members of the public showed up, according to City Administrator Patrick Wiemiller, who described the meeting as a “free flow of discussion” on various topics.

Lompoc’s had issues with transparency in the past. The Santa Barbara County District Attorney issued two Brown Act violation warnings to Lompoc in the last three years, although the city was cleared of any wrongdoing.

This led the city to make an effort at being more open, hosting several meetings on open access to government in 2016.

Wiemiller told the Sun that closed ad hoc meetings are useful when dealing with confidential information, like personnel issues or negotiations, but said otherwise the city will keep them open to the public.

“It’ll be a practiced approach from now on,” Wiemiller said. “We strive towards transparency.”

Staff Writer David Minsky can be reached at [email protected].

Comments (0)
Add a Comment