Talk of Brown Act violations–real or suspected–dominated the election debates in the races for Lompoc City Council seats and mayor this year. And while the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office announced in July that it was investigating the Lompoc City Council for allegedly violating that open-meeting act, the office didn’t release its findings until after the election results were counted.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Kelly D. Scott sent a letter to Lompoc City Attorney Joseph Pannone on Nov. 14, informing him that the investigation was over and no wrongdoing was found. Chief Deputy Scott confirmed this to the Sun in a telephone conversation.
The Brown Act is California’s open meeting law, which basically outlines how public meetings should be run and what subjects members can and can’t discuss outside of the public eye.
The investigation stemmed from multiple anonymous allegations of Brown Act violations, which included some council members’ appearances before the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in February, when supervisors denied local Jim Mosby a use permit for his 40-acre property dedicated to youth recreational activities. The parcel sits outside city limits.
Council members Dirk Starbuck and DeWayne Holmdahl, as well as former Mayor John Linn, appeared before the board to support Mosby in requesting a stay of the county’s decision.
In April, City Council members voted to authorize a declaration from the city in support of Mosby suing the county. The item was added to the agenda earlier that day and voted on around midnight. The vote was approved 3-2 with former council member Ashley Costa and now-mayor Bob Lingl dissenting. Complaints from Lompoc residents allege that the vote occurred without any public discussion.
However, after a series of back-and-forth letters with the city, Scott was unable to find any specific violations—but in his letter to Pannone, he did remind the city of the Brown Act’s intent: “Although I cannot conclude with certainty that the Lompoc City Council violated the Brown Act on February 11, 2014, or April 1, 2014, the purpose of this letter is to remind the City Council that, generally, discussion regarding matters within the City Council’s jurisdiction must be held in an ‘open meeting.’”
This article appears in Dec 18-25, 2014.