Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2014-2015
The Ralph M. Brown ACT ...not to BE Taken Lightly
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
Larger boards such as the Board of Supervisors and city councils, which can afford consistent legal guidance at their meetings, usually follow Brown Act procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Jurisdictions must always follow Brown Act procedures.
F2
There may be Brown Act violations that go unnoticed by staff, board members, and the public, especially in smaller jurisdictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
All jurisdictions should keep a log to ensure that board members and key staff receive training every two years, as required by Government Code 53235.1(c)(2)(b).
F3
Awareness of such violations is often triggered by a controversial decision, and can cause great embarrassment. Rectifying violations can be very expensive and result in unplanned costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Board members and staff should personally ensure that their training is adequate and current.
F4
There are numerous opportunities to get professional Brown Act training. New board members and key employees appear to all receive training. It is unclear whether that training is reinforced every two years as required in Government Code 53234(d)(3).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Jurisdictions should periodically schedule Brown Act training on a meeting agenda and invite members of the public to attend.
F5
Since the general public has limited exposure to the Brown Act, strict adherence reduces the potential for procedural controversy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
To ensure full transparency, jurisdictions should regularly review their meeting and posting procedures for compliance with the Brown Act. Further, jurisdictions can also consider reviewing all their public practices, including seeking a “District Transparency Certificate of Excellence”, which is offered by the Special District Leadership Foundation.
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R6The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and all cities within the County should ensure that their commissions, committees, boards and other bodies subject to the Brown Act, maintain records on their ethics and Brown Act training compliance. RESPONSES Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that the following officials submit specific responses to the findings and recommendations in this report to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court by October 1, 2015: • Sacramento County Board of Supervisors - all Findings and Recommendation 6. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Robert C. Hight, Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street, Department 47 Sacramento, California 95814 In addition, email the response to: Becky Castaneda, Grand Jury Coordinator at castanb@saccourt.com 46