The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors met during teleconference Tuesday, restricting public comment to email and mailed remarks on an agenda covering more than $100 million in funding related to the coronavirus and issues ranging from tenant protections to public works projects.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who chairs the board, led the meeting with a comment that seemed intended to address any concerns about compliance with the Brown Act.
“Consistent with the government order calling for local legislative bodies to allow members of the public to observe and address the meeting, telephonically or otherwise, the executive office of the board received over 200 written public comments,” Barger said. “All of them were available to supervisors for their consideration, consistent with the Brown Act requirement.”
Not everyone agrees that the board is in compliance with the open meetings law designed to promote transparency and accountability. The Los Angeles Times editorial board, for example, cited the supervisors’ earlier teleconference on March 31 as a violation of the Brown Act, even given the looser requirements set by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order related to the coronavirus.
In its April 7 editorial, The Times called on the county board to allow for real-time public comment via phone or internet, pointing out that city councils, school boards and other public agencies have already made such accommodations.
One small change was made by the board Tuesday — names of individuals in favor of or opposed to agenda items held for discussion by the board were read aloud.
Near the end of Tuesday’s meeting, Supervisor Janice Hahn read a proposal to expand the opportunity for public comment.
“The coronavirus pandemic has presented local government with the unique challenge of how to conduct business in an open, transparent way while still complying with the restrictions on movement and physical proximity that we have all embraced in order to slow the spread of the virus,” Hahn said.
Hahn said the board was in compliance with the Brown Act, but that she was concerned about limiting public comment to written correspondence going forward.
“I believe that members of the public are entitled to offer their testimony directly to our Board, and given the significant technology we have, we should determine the best way to do that, in the spirit of transparency and the Brown Act,” Hahn said.
The board’s executive office and county attorneys are expected to report back with options in two weeks — the next time the board is scheduled to meet.
In the meantime, written comments submitted by the public will be made available as part of the board’s posted statement of proceedings.