• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

"August 3, 1999: Discussion of the EIR. While the CARE vs. City litigation was separately docketed and discussed, it was not proper to discuss the EIR within the scope of the posted agenda concerning real property negotiations. The EIR should be publicly discussed. An EIR must be discussed in open session.

"September 14, 1999: Discussion of pending lawsuits was proper and was properly docketed. However, discussion of the homeless and how redevelopment would affect the homeless was not proper for discussion under the agenda nor within any exception to the Brown Act. The discussion of the terms of the agreement with the Padres was proper.

"September 28, 1999: Discussion of obtaining procurement consultants. This is not within the scope of the agenda and does not fall within any exception of the Brown Act.

"October 5, 1999: No discussion.

"October 6, 1999: Canceled.

"October 19, 1999: Discussion of negotiations with Port District. This was within the scope of the agenda...

The minutes reflect that the city attorney briefed the council on the proposed lease with the Padres. As to the Port District the city attorney briefed the council with regard to a proposed agreement with the Port District for acquisition of property. Both items were properly docketed and discussed in closed session. The names of the negotiating parties should have been listed and announced.

"November 30, 1999: The downtown ballpark project was not discussed.

"December 7, 1999: No discussion.

"December 14 and 16, 1999: No discussion.

"January 10, 2000: Negotiations of lease agreement. This was properly within the agenda.

"January 18, 2000: No discussion.

"January 31, 2000: Discussion of lease agreement and ongoing negotiations with the Port. This was proper under the Brown Act and was appropriately noticed except that the names of the negotiating parties were not docketed or announced.

"Based on a review of the minutes, the Court finds that prior to the filing of this lawsuit the city repeatedly violated the Brown Act by failing to properly notify the public of the items under discussion in closed session, by conducting closed sessions on items that should have been discussed in public, and by failing to designate the names of the negotiating parties.

"A judgment will be issued in accordance with these findings and shall enjoin the city from discussing items in closed session that are not clearly within the letter and spirit of the Brown Act."

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

Comments

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close