Politics & Government

District Attorney to Investigate Alleged Open Meetings Violations in San Carlos

San Carlos faces an investigation by the District Attorney and litigation from a government accountability watchdog group after potentially violating open meetings laws.

An inspector from the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office said they will begin investigating the San Carlos City Council to determine whether open meetings laws were broken during a March 28 closed session meeting.

“We’re going to look closer at the situation, investigate the claims that were made and determine what, if any, violations occurred,” said inspector Mark Scheffler.

Scheffler said Assistant District Attorney Albert Serrato would be in charge of the investigation.

Find out what's happening in Belmontwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The city also now faces litigation from a California watchdog group after it refused to correct those same potential open meetings violations first reported by San Carlos Patch.

“We don’t believe that what we did was a Brown Act violation,” said City Manager Jeff Maltbie. The Brown Act is a piece of California legislation ensuring transparency in government. 

Find out what's happening in Belmontwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The government accountability group Californians Aware issued a “cure or correction” letter this past weekend demanding the city rescind a decision made in closed session and make appropriate changes to the meetings agenda to reflect openness and an opportunity for public comment before or during meetings whether the comment pertains to an item on or off the agenda.

“The blatant disregard for the public’s rights, as illustrated by the City Attorney’s Response, makes this litigation essential,” said Robert McKee, Vice President for Open Government Compliance with Californians Aware.

The March 28 closed session decision saw the appointment of Mayor Omar Ahmad and Councilman Randy Royce to represent the city in fire mediation with Belmont. The city cited “anticipated litigation” as the reason for the closed session, despite there being no threat of pending litigation.

“Because the City Attorney has refused our demand to correct violations alleged in our Demand for Cure or Correction, and has declared the challenged practices to be lawful under the Brown Act, we will begin litigation . . . immediately.”

City attorney Greg Rubens responded to the letter on April 7.

“First, your letter incorrectly asserts that Government Code Section 54954.3(a) requires that the agenda expressly provide an opportunity for the public to speak before consideration of an agenda [item] . . . The issue you raise is not an agenda requirement under the Brown Act,” Rubens wrote in the letter. “The City of San Carlos is in compliance with the Brown Act in its agenda format and policies for the conduct of meetings.”

One area of particular concern addressed in the letter was the city’s use of “preliminary meetings.” In the initial letter to the city, Californians Aware said the term was confusing, something Rubens refuted in his retort.

“By holding 'preliminary' meetings at a different time and place the City intentionally discourages the participation the public is entitled to,” the letter said. “Not only is there no mention of the notice of the right to address the body on agenda items, but the majority of the items are closed session, further discouraging public attention.”

San Carlos announced Friday evening the possibility of limiting their representative in fire mediation from two to one.

Belmont Vice Mayor Dave Warden said the decision to limit the fire negotiators from two to one was Belmont’s idea. The current situation has three of the four fire board members meeting in private sessions to discuss fire service issues, something Warden believes constitutes a quorum and would lead to Brown Act violations.

Warden said either the four representatives should meet in public, or only one representative from each side should meet in private to avoid any violations.

“If there is a desire to do this privately then we need to make sure we do not have the majority of the fire board meeting in public,” Warden said.

Belmont and San Carlos engage in a Joint Powers Agreement for fire services, but San Carlos issued a dissolution letter to Belmont late last year that will take effect in October 2011.

On Feb. 15, Board of Supervisors’ President Carole Groom and Supervisor Adrienne Tissier suggested the two cities participate in mediation to explore fire service options. San Carlos immediately accepted the offer while Belmont voted in favor of mediation on March 22 with a 3-2 vote. Mayor Coralin Feierbach and Warden voted against the proposal.

San Carlos Vice Mayor Andy Klein said he believes the city will send Mayor Omar Ahmad to represent the city should the two sides settle on sending one representative.

 “I think it’s highly foolish to have one mediator,” Klein said. “It should be two. If they want one, I would push for it to be the mayor.”

 Regarding the lawsuit the city now faces with Californians Aware, Klein deferred comment to legal counsel, but first said the city acted properly under the law.

“These groups like Californians Aware get a little overzealous,” Klein said. “I honestly don’t even understand why it’s still an issue.”


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here