Check out our new advertisers www.cammansion.com and www.eruptionxl.com Follow AdultFYI at twitter@adultfyi1; Follow Gene Ross at twitter@GeneRoss3
The Ralph M. Brown Act, was an act of the California State Legislature, authored by Assemblymember Ralph M. Brown and passed in 1953, that guaranteed the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.
The Brown Act, originally a 686 word statute that has grown substantially over the years, was enacted in response to mounting public concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials. City councils, county boards, and other local government bodies were avoiding public scrutiny by holding secret “workshops” and “study sessions.”
The Brown Act solely applies to California city and county government agencies, boards, and councils.
That being said, attorney Michael Fattorosi pointed out this week that the LA City Council is in possible violation of it regarding the new condom ordinance.
The Adult Film Industry Working Group, comprised of officials from the LAPD,Cal/OSHA and the city attorney’s office, met on March 2.
The meeting, as Fattorosi points out, was held behind closed doors in possible violation of California’s Brown Act, which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.
Fattorosi was authoring the article “The Condoms Are Coming” for the March edition of XBIZ World, and while researching the new law for the second part of his article came across the fact that there was no agenda posted for the March 2 meeting on the City Council’s website.
“As I conducted my research it became apparent that the City Council did not post the agenda on purpose,” Fattorosi told XBIZ.
Fattorosi then contacted the City Attorney’s Office requesting a copy of the agenda, except they didn’t provide him with one.
“At least with an agenda in hand we would know for certain who has been appointed to the working group as well as what was discussed in that first meeting,” Fattorosi continued.
If the “working group” were found to have violated the Brown Act, the district attorney or even a private individual could propose injunctions for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination and fines against public officers or employees of the agencies.
According to Fattorosi, without representation at that meeting the adult industry will never be given a fair and balanced opportunity to voice their opinions about the rules being promulgated and the enforcement of the law.
“This is a potentially serious offense by the city and the use of condoms needs to be discussed in an open meeting and not behind the closed doors of a star chamber.”
Fattorosi said he already has made a formal written request to the City Council pursuant to California Governmental Code section 54953.5(b) that they turn over any videotape or audio recordings from working group’s March 2 meeting.
Fattorosi suggested that if the city refuses to provide the agenda as well as the recordings then litigation to force the city to conduct the meetings in open would be necessary.
According to XBiz, Frank Mateljan [pictured], a spokesman for the City Attorney’s office, confirmed that the public could not attend the March 2 meeting and said he could not provide any agendas, transcript and audio or videotapes of it.
Mateljan also said that the law currently is not being enforced until City Council decides on final language that will be introduced May 8. Mateljan said he couldn’t state one way or another whether the “working group” violated the Brown Act.