Today’s council meeting includes a request by some members to investigate leaks of information from closed sessions; a fine idea, but one that has to recognize that this council doesn’t always tell you as residents everything it should out of its closed sessions.
By law, governments can conduct some discussions in secret, predominantly negotiations related to payment or real estate and discussions with attorneys over court cases. There are good reasons for those allowances as conducting all that business in open session could undermine privacy rights or put the city at a disadvantage in a way that could cost taxpayers more. In those cases, protecting the discussion is absolutely valid.
However, there are instances where the discussions that are allowed to occur in closed session should be daylighted and the public should be informed. It’s important to note that the law only requires disclosure under specific circumstances but the Council can choose to waive confidentiality and inform the public about actions in closed session.
That hasn’t always happened, including a secret decision earlier this year to withdraw Santa Monica from the lawsuit regarding the County’s zero bail system.
Starting in October of last year, every police agency in the county had to follow a new bail system that largely eliminated the need for cash bail while evaluating the severity of the crime, a suspect’s risk to the public and repeat offenses.
Advocates said the new bail process addresses an unfair system that targeted the poor who could not afford bail. Critics said it would contribute to rising crime trends although information from the Court system said it had no impact on crime rates after implementation.
A group of cities in Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit to delay implementation of the policy in response to the new rules and Santa Monica joined the case on a 4–3 vote.
Mayor Pro Tempore Lana Negrete and Councilmembers Christine Parra and Oscar de la Torre voted yes, along with then Councilmember (now Mayor) Phil Brock who asked for the City to join the case. Councilmembers Gleam Davis, Caroline Torosis and Jesse Zwick voted not to join the lawsuit.
Whether you agreed with the lawsuit or not, you had a right to know the Council withdrew and why they did so. There was no report out of a closed session, Councilmembers refuse to comment on the decision and the City Attorney’s office statement is "Per the City Attorney, according to the Brown Act, there was no reportable action from closed session on the Whittier case."
There’s no good reason for the situation and the secrecy is an insult to you, the residents who vote for our elected officials.
Did the Council think that residents would not want to know about this decision? If so, that’s just rabid incompetence on their part.
Did they know residents would care but didn’t want to talk about it? That’s malfeasance.
Did they want to disclose it but were told they couldn’t? That would be a lie by the staff.
No doubt, the current leak investigation discussion is going to make reference to trust and the lack of it that occurs when secrets are divulged. That’s an important point and while there are good reasons for some discussions to be withheld from the public eye, Council should consider the damage they do to the public’s trust when they use closed sessions to hide otherwise important information from residents.
matt@smdp.com
