Response to Grand Jury Report, #c14-03c*

"Evidence supports that the HA did in fact violate the Brown Act. At a rescheduled meeting this SCCGJ committee witnessed first hand the HA's process for such an event. The HA had posted the notice to reschedule the public meeting on their website and inside the lobby of the HA building. This posting was not visible to those arriving to the meeting, which was scheduled for after business hours". Respondent does not agree with the finding. Though the Brown Act Response: prescribes notice and posting requirements for agendas of regular and special meetings, it does not appear to specifically address notice and posting requirements under the circumstances presented, namely, notice to re-schedule a public meeting for which there has been no finding that the notice and posting requirements for the meeting as originally scheduled were not met. No California court opinion appears to have interpreted the Brown Act in a manner which would support the finding of a violation under the circumstances described and there is no finding that the Brown Act was violated by the HA in not timely posting the agenda for the rescheduled meeting. In any event the circumstance described was an isolated event, inadvertent, and not intended in any manner to deprive the public of information to which it is entitled. RECEIVED OCT 0 1 2014 Civil Grand Jury FAX (209) 557-2011 • TDD (209) 557-2012 It is the Authority's practice to post the Board's agenda seven calendar days prior to the Board's regularly scheduled meeting, however, in no event later than seventy two hours before the scheduled meeting. The Agenda is posted in a display case located on the Authority premises located at 1701 Robertson Road, Modesto, in an area which is fully accessible to the public and available for inspection on a twenty four hour basis. The Authority also posts the agenda on the Authority's internet website. This is done at the same time as the physical posting of the agenda made reference above, that is, one week before the regularly scheduled board meeting and no later than seventy two hours prior to the meeting.

"It was confirmed through several sources and the Director that there was a manager who did bring a pet to work". <b>Response</b>: The respondent agrees with the finding that there was a manager who brought a The manager was approached and the incident was discussed. There have pet to work. been no occurrences since.

"Although the HA building was secure and employee files were locked each night, the client files were not. Anyone with access into the building could steal personal information found in the files. File storage room also did not have a keyed lock for access". Response: Respondent agrees with the finding.