SCPG Meeting Cancelled Due to Lack of Quorum

The August meeting of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group was cancelled before it got started almost.

Roll call was taken but there were not enough boardmembers present to continue the meeting. There are currently fourteen boardmembers and one vacant seat.

No approval of the last month's minutes, no community updates, no trails update, no traffic advisory update, no ad hoc committee updates and no design review updates. Nada. The meeting was stopped . . . dead in the water.

So what does "quorum" mean and what is it about?

quo·rum /ˈkwôrəm/ noun The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. —Oxford Dictionary

It has to do with California's Brown Act. Named after Assemblymember Ralph M. Brown, it was signed into law on July 2, 1953 after public concerns arose about secret meetings held by local government officials. The Brown Act is a crucial tool for promoting government transparency and accountability at the local level in California

SCPG boardmembers are voted into office every four years by the public and fall into the category under San Diego County. Because they are associated with the County, they must follow the Brown Act.

What does the Brown Act mandate?

• All meetings must be open to the public.

• The meeting locations must be accessible to the public.

• The public has the right to attend, participate and record these meetings.

• Agendas must be posted at least 72 hours in advance on the County website, with a brief description of each agenda item.

The Brown Act's core purpose is to ensure the public can observe and understand how decisions are made by their elected officials. 

Violations of the Brown Act

Violations of the Brown Act can be challenged in court. Such violations could lead to voided decisions, payment of a challenger's legal fees, public humiliation and sometimes criminal prosecution.

Being an elected official is serious business and not to be taken lightly.

What are some examples of Brown Act violations?

• Failing to properly post an agenda for a meeting with sufficient time in advance for the public to attend. 

• Discussing or adding items during a meeting that were not already on the agenda.

• Communicating with each other individually, through intermediaries, or via technology to discuss an issue without a public meeting

• Discussing matters in a closed session that do not fall under the allowed exceptions for confidential information. 

• Making decisions without a required number of members present (a quorum) at a public meeting. 

  
  

How does the Brown Act deal with married couples?

I have always wondered about this because there have been three married couples sitting on the board for many, many years. Up until this time, I have never seen even one married couple sitting on the same government board, much less three. The couples on the SCPG board are:

Steve* and Elizabeth Stonehouse

John and Harriet Taylor

Tony and Judy Tieber

*Steve Stonehouse did not receive a board position in the last public election. When boardmember Shane Parmely vacated her seat, the board voted Steve back in. Before the vote, I had requested that the board wait to see what new faces might be interested in the position. Had it been a private ballot vote, I think things might have taken a different course.

When Steve Stonehouse returns to the board, 6 out of 15 boardmembers will be married couples, more than 1/3 of the board and edging up on 1/2 of the board.

I'm curious how a married couple does not discuss the topics on the agenda. They never discuss these over breakfast in the morning or when they crawl under the covers at night?

This is what I found on the subject:

According to the Brown Act, a married couple where both individuals are members of a legislative body cannot privately discuss or deliberate on official business matters outside of a public meeting, meaning they cannot use their marital relationship to circumvent the law requiring open government discussions; essentially, they cannot "collude" on official decisions at home without proper public notice. 

Key points about the Brown Act and married couples:

• No private discussions on official business: The Brown Act prohibits a majority of a legislative body from discussing official business outside of a public meeting, even if they are married to each other. 

• Potential for conflict of interest: If a married couple on a governing board were to discuss official business privately, it could be seen as a conflict of interest and a violation of the Brown Act. 

• Open communication is key: All deliberations and decisions on official matters must happen in public meetings where anyone can attend and participate. 

At the last two SCPG meetings, there have been no "Action Items" on the agenda. Action items are subjects that end up in a vote. So there's no worry about Brown Act violations in relation to outside discussions taking place. For now . . .

Return to Main Page