The Morgan Hill City Council will consider placing two measures on the November election ballot at their July 27 meeting, but some observers say the noticing of the public hearing items could have been more upfront to the citizens.
City officials said they corrected one of the complaints by clarifying the agenda description in the name of openness and transparency, a move that a Brown Act expert said is exactly what governments should be “encouraged” to do.
Specifically, item 12 on the agenda relates to a possible revenue measure, mainly for street repairs and improvements, in the form of a local sales tax or $38 million general obligation bond.
Item 13 recommends the council approve a ballot measure asking voters to renew the Residential Development Control System, which currently expires in 2020 with a city population cap of 48,000 for that year.
When the agenda was released to the public July 22, neither title of the two items mentioned a possible ballot measure. Anyone interested in the agenda and unfamiliar with recent council discussions would have to read a list of recommended actions following each title to learn the council might vote to place the measures on the ballot.
Item 12 was titled “Report on quality of life survey results,” with discussion of a possible revenue measure on the Nov. 8 ballot listed as among the recommended actions. The staff report for this item in fact does not advise the council to approve such a measure, but cites recent public opinion research that indicates Morgan Hill voters are unlikely to support a new funding source for city services.
Item 13 was titled “Morgan Hill 2035 Project: Environmental Impact Report (EIR); General Plan Update; and Residential Development Control System (RDCS) update.” Adoption of a measure to place on the November ballot is buried within recommendation number three of the agenda item.
That irked Morgan Hill resident Chris Monack, who emailed council members and city staff to express his frustration with the vague titles. He suggested that failing to provide details of the possible passage of a bond measure within the agenda item description is inconsistent with the Brown Act, a state law that ensures openness of public meetings and records.
“(If) someone looked at the agenda titles to find reference to the ordinance, they wouldn’t find any,” Monack said by email. “They would have to know specifically where to look.”
City officials agreed with Monack’s complaint about the vagueness, at least for the item 12 revenue measure. They released an amended agenda July 25, with a new title: “Report on quality of life survey and consideration of a sales tax and/or general obligation bond November 2016 ballot measure(s).”
“We are revising the agenda to say that, even though it’s a little late,” Mayor Steve Tate said. “We are very widely publicizing the fact it’s a ballot consideration as well.”
But that doesn’t appease Monack, who argues the new agenda did not meet the Brown Act’s minimum timing requirement for public notices. The act says public meeting agendas must be posted to the public at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
A Brown Act expert contacted by the Times said the city is probably not guilty of violating its noticing requirements, but could have been clearer from the get-go. The Brown Act recommends that public government meeting agenda items should include a brief description “generally not to exceed 20 words,” according to Nikki Moore, Legal Counsel for the California Newspapers Publishers’ Association.
The description of items 12 and 13 on the July 27 agenda each tally in at more than 75 words, including the list of recommended actions for each items.
“I think it’s a little bit unclear on the front end that they could be taking a vote, and they could do a better job describing what they’re planning to do,” Moore said. “For the regular citizen reading this they might not know what action might be taken. (Item 12) would be well served to be more specific what they’re actually intending to do, which is sort of buried” in the recommended actions.
Moore added that the reposting of the amended agenda does not seem to violate the Brown Act’s 72-hour minimum either, and in fact “There’s a public interest in encouraging government to fix their mistakes.”
She added, “The recommendation portion does put the public on notice of what the title says so the clarification does not change anything, and does not require that the (council) put over the item for discussion at a properly noticed meeting.”
If the amended title was significantly different from the original agenda posting, that could constitute a Brown Act violation and the council would have to delay discussion, Moore added.
Even if there was no Brown Act violation, the way the agenda items were written is “ethically questionable and irresponsible to the community,” Monack added. He plans to publicly object to the noticing of the July 27 meeting.
City staff compiles each council meeting agenda, which is approved by City Manager Steve Rymer before it is released to the public.
Rymer added that he agreed that Monack had a good point about the lack of clarity in the title of item 12. The original title posted July 22, which had no mention of a possible vote on bond or sales tax measure, was based on previous discussions about ongoing public opinion research conducted by consultants Godbe Research and The Lew Edwards Group, he added. The consultants were hired by the council last year to conduct research on local voters’ priorities for their city government, and to gauge their interest in taxing themselves to augment city services.
The city wasn’t trying to hide anything, Rymer assured. On the contrary, in addition to circulating the agenda, city staff have also sent out “email blasts” in advance of the July 27 meeting, prominently notifying recipients of the two possible ballot measures under consideration.
“I think our track record speaks for itself,” Rymer said. “We are very open and transparent. The law requires it, and the council expects it.”
Among other items, the Morgan Hill City Council July 27 will consider placing either a general obligation bond or sales tax on the November ballot (item 12 on the agenda). The elected officials will also consider placing a measure asking voters to renew the Residential Development Control System—which currently expires in 2020—on the Nov. 8 ballot (item 13 on the agenda). Public opinion research consultants The Lew Edwards Group and Godbe Research—who were hired by the council last year to conduct surveys of likely Morgan Hill voters—recommend placing only the RDCS measure on the ballot, and not pursuing a revenue measure for November 2016 due to a lack of support among survey respondents. The meeting will start 7 p.m. July 27 at council chambers, 17555 Peak Ave.
