Much ado about plenty
February 4, 2005
The Times-Standard
It would be a mistake for our five county supervisors to blow off this
community's outcry over their decision last week to skirt California's
public meeting laws.
More than 50 people took time out of their day Tuesday afternoon to
attend the Board of Supervisors' public comment period.
More than 25 got up to speak. And all of them expressed dismay over
the supervisors' 3-1 decision the previous week to send a letter on
behalf of Pacific Lumber Co. urging a state agency to speed up its processing
of Palco's timber harvest plans.
The board made this decision outside of normal procedures clearly stated
in the Ralph M. Brown Act, raising the question of whether Palco duped
the supervisors into violating the tenets established in this hallowed
piece of legislation adopted more than 50 years ago to keep politics
out of back rooms.
Once this letter was sent, the action couldn't be undone.
But this fact didn't stop dozens of people from showing up a week later,
turning what is normally a five or 10 minute spot on the agenda into
an hour-and-a-half marathon complaint session.
These people came from all over the county. They included the usual
Palco foes. But those who spoke represented a broad section of the social
strata in Humboldt County.
And all of them were upset at the board for its handling of the Palco
letter.
Only one person -- Palco's own assistant government relations manager
-- spoke in defense of the letter and how its adoption was accomplished.
To hear any supervisor dismiss this overwhelming public expression of
dissatisfaction as "much ado about nothing" is troubling,
to say the least.
The supervisors and their legal adviser, the county counsel, have been
quick to defend themselves against charges they violated the Brown Act.
But their self-serving argument leaks like a sieve. The Brown Act mandates
that government bodies publish their agendas at least 72 hours before
each meeting, with some exceptions.
One of these exceptions is if the board becomes aware of the need to
take action on an item after the agenda is published.
The supervisors argue that because Palco didn't bring the need to send
this letter to their attention until the last moment, their action --
adding the item to their agenda the day of the meeting without public
notification then approving it -- is legal.
But it turns out that Palco knew about the need weeks in advance, and
that the need to send the letter was not urgent.
If the supervisors allow this as an excuse to get around the Brown Act,
it means that anybody who wants a favor from the board -- but would
rather avoid public scrutiny -- can just wait until the night before
a meeting before bringing it to a supervisor for action. No questions
asked. We expect better from our current county supervisors, who for
the most part have proven themselves to be capable and ethical public
trustees.
Let's hope this collective letdown in logical thinking on their part
is just a one-time event.
