📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 10 findings
F1
Page 44
The Grand Jury received responses from 34 of the 55 districts surveyed.
F2
Page 44
In some cases, only a portion of the elected officials responded.
F3
Page 44
Although the Grand Jury requested responses from individual elected officials, some districts submitted one response for the entire group of elected officials. It is not known how these responses were determined or if only one member responded.
F4
Page 44
The inconsistency of the responses may have been confusion on the part of the elected officials. However, the accompanying letter states “...The Grand Jury feels that completion of a brief survey requiring only a few check marks, would be much more convenient and less time consuming than requiring the personal appearance of each of such a large group of individuals.” (Emphasis added)
F5
Page 44
In tabulating the results of the survey, the Grand Jury assumed that the responses from the districts with a single response indicated the feelings of all five of the elected officials of that entity. 45
F6
Page 45
The Grand Jury received 73 responses, but using the method described in
F7
Page 45
Results of Question 1, “How confident do you feel about your understanding of the Ralph M. Brown Act?” · Quite confident - 27 · Fairly confident - 54 · Not very confident - 9 · Not confident at all -1
F8
Page 45
Results of Question 2, “What sort of training have you had on the provisions of the Brown Act?” There are multiple answers to this question as members reported several kinds of training. · Formal seminar - 60 · Reading publications - 45 · Informal discussion - 40 · No training at all -3
F9
Page 45
Results of Question 3, “When did you last have any formal training on the provisions of the Brown Act?” · A year ago or less - 28 · 2 to 3 years ago - 25 · Over 3 years ago - 8 · Never had training - 26
F10
Page 45
The California School Board Association puts on two formal seminars per year, which include updates or revisions regarding the Brown Act. It is not known how many school districts within the County require their board members to attend these training sessions. Commendation The Grand Jury commends the six entities in which five board members responded. These were: Mother Lode Union School District, Black Oak Mine Unified School District, Garden Valley Fire Protection District, El Dorado Hills Community Service District and Pioneer Fire Protection District.
Recommendations 2
-
R1Page 45The Board of Supervisors should provide, via the County Counsel, two seminars per year on the Brown Act; one in the Tahoe area and one on the Western Slope. It should notify all elected officials of the time and place of these seminars. Response to Recommendation R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Although County Counsel is willing and able to implement this recommendation, it does not appear warranted on the present facts. The Grand Jury’s survey indicates that training resources are available and a significant level of training has occurred, and no district has requested that the County provide this service. Responses to questions #3 indicating that some officials have not had formal training on the Brown Act do not necessarily indicate the unavailability of such training. County Counsel training does make Brown Act training and ongoing advice available to all agency boards for which it provides legal counsel, and has occasionally provided informal instruction to entities of limited means. However, as a matter of County policy, County Counsel does not provide legal counsel to local public entities other than the County, the County Water Agency, the El Dorado County Fair, the County Service Areas, the Air Pollution Control District, and the Local Agency Formation Commission. Many of the other public entities in the County are capable of, and should be, obtaining instruction from their own counsel regarding Brown Act requirements and compliance. Also, numerous other resources are available for guidance, including educational seminars sponsored by non-profit and for-profit providers, and oral and written guidance from the California Attorney General’s office. The California School Board Association provides training at various seminars and its annual conference and in addition, and has published an informative pamphlet devoted entirely to the Brown Act. If additional information shows that these alternatives are insufficient, and a genuine need exists, the County can make County Counsel seminars available to agencies that want to arrange for those services.
-
R2Page 46All Boards subject to the Brown Act should provide training and insure they conduct business in compliance with the Brown Act. Responses Required for Findings No responses required Responses Required for Recommendations