Brown Act – CA Open Meetings
Father of Davis Stirling Act

How does the Brown Act have anything to do with the Davis Stirling Open Meeting Act?

 

The Davis Stirling Open Meeting act is Modeled on Brown Act. The legislature patterned the Open Meeting Act on the open meeting provisions of the Brown Act:

Because of a homeowners association board’s broad powers and the number of individuals potentially affected by a board’s actions, the Legislature has mandated that boards hold open meetings and allow the members to speak publicly at the meetings. (Civ.Code, §§ 1363.05, 1363; 1350-1376.) These provisions parallel California’s open meeting laws regulating government officials, agencies and boards. (Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov.Code, § 54950 et seq.) Both statutory schemes mandate open governance meetings, with notice, agenda and minutes requirements, and strictly limit closed executive sessions. (Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 468, 475.)

Therefore, in the absence of any Davis-Stirling Act cases, we must look to the Brown Act for guidance Davis Stirling.com *

Open Meeting Act §4900 Table of Contents

Legislative #Intent Davis Stirling Act

Who is in charge of the association?

The homeowners are in charge of the association.   The board answers to the homeowners.  DRE Publication 39

Committee Meeting

Analysis CARA CA Alliance of Retired Americans comments, "In its study of the state's 36,000 common interest developments, the California Research Bureau reported that associations either do not disclose to homeowners how their money is being spent or else they report it inaccurately.

The report also states that between 14-20 percent of all lawsuits filed by shareholders against associations are for financial mismanagement. AB 1098 (2005)  corrects this lack of disclosure by association boards and lack of knowledge by homeowners. It assures that association shareholders (i.e., homeowners) have access to the association financial records to find out how boards are spending the billions under their control. It makes good fiscal sense that homeowners, who have the biggest financial stake, should be watching the books.  Committee Hearing AB 1098 April 2005 *     AB 314  1985  

Brown Act - Father of Davis Stirling

“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” Gov’t Code § 54950. *  First Amendment Coalition *

Brown Act Highlights

CHAPTER 9. Meetings [54950 – 54963]

54950.5.  This chapter shall be known as the Ralph M. Brown Act.

 

54950.  In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. CHAPTER 9. Meetings [54950 – 54963]

 

 

§ 54954.3. Opportunity for public to address legislative body;

(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, Carlson v Paradise Unified School District

Government Code  54950

…the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.16 (e) …,

“act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue” includes: …(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest;

Under section 54952.2, as well as prior case law, a gathering need not be formally convened in order to be covered by the Act. The court held that a luncheon gathering… was a meeting within the meaning of the Act. …Construed in the light of the Brown Act’s objectives, the term ‘meeting’ extends to informal sessions or conferences of the board members designed for the discussion of public business. Brown Act  Attorney General’s Explanation

How can one address the item (one in list: a single thing in a list of things) if it’s not spelled out, or until it is?

Brown Act is intended to ensure the public’s right to attend public agency meetings to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decision-making, and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies. Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Com’n

Brown Act Summaries

City of Santa Cruz Summary

Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act  Government Code sections 11120-11132  40 page summary pdf>

Brown Act

Father of Davis Sterling

VIDEOS

Brown Act Video

1st Amendment Coalition.org
Brown Act Primer

brown act primer

Legislative Intent of Brown & Davis Stirling  

Summary of Open Meeting Act 4900 - 4950
by Curtis #Sproul Esq
This summary appears to have been written in 2014, so you'll want to check the code references... 
Summary of Open Meeting Act 4900 - 4950 by Curtis Sproul Esq

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.

Board meetings served a function similar to that of a governmental body. As our Supreme Court has recognized, owners of planned development units “comprise a little democratic sub society….”

In exchange for the benefits of common ownership, the residents elect an legislative/executive board and delegate powers to this board. This delegation concerns not only activities conducted in the common areas, but also extends to life **210 within “the confines of the home itself.” A homeowners association board is in effect “a quasi-government entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.”  Because of a homeowners association board’s broad powers and the number of individuals potentially affected by a board’s actions, the Legislature has mandated that boards hold open meetings and allow the members to speak publicly at the meetings. ( Civ.Code, §§ 1363.05 , 1363; 1350- 1376.)

These provisions parallel California’s open meeting laws regulating government officials, agencies and boards. (Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov.Code, § 54950 et seq.) Both statutory schemes mandate open governance meetings, with notice, agenda and minutes requirements, and strictly limit closed executive sessions. (See, e.g., Civ.Code, § 1363.05, subd. (b). ) Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club  davis-stirling.com

Brown Act Model

The legislature patterned the Open Meeting Act on the open meeting provisions of the Brown Act:

Because of a homeowners association board’s broad powers and the number of individuals potentially affected by a board’s actions, the Legislature has mandated that boards hold open meetings and allow the members to speak publicly at the meetings. (Civ.Code) These provisions parallel California’s open meeting laws regulating government officials, agencies and boards. (Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov.Code, § 54950 et seq.) Both statutory schemes mandate open governance meetings, with notice, agenda and minutes requirements, and strictly limit closed executive sessions. (Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club )   Davis-stirling.com

 

2 comments on “Brown Act compared to Davis Stirling

  1. Do you have a reference or citation to a recent change to Brown Act that allows a stipulation agreement between a violating public entity and the Petitioner to stop violating Brown Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.