Latest news with #BrownAct
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
L.A. council members were told a vote could violate public meeting law. They voted anyway
When Los Angeles City Council members took up a plan to hike the wages of tourism workers this week, they received some carefully worded advice from city lawyers: Don't vote on this yet. Senior Assistant City Atty. Michael J. Dundas advised them on Wednesday — deep into their meeting — that his office had not yet conducted a final legal review of the flurry of last-minute changes they requested earlier in the day. Dundas recommended that the council delay its vote for two days to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's open meeting law. "We advise that the posted agenda for today's meeting provides insufficient notice under the Brown Act for first consideration and adoption of an ordinance to increase the wages and health benefits for hotel and airport workers," Dundas wrote. The council pressed ahead anyway, voting 12-3 to increase the minimum wage of those workers to $30 per hour by 2028, despite objections from business groups, hotel owners and airport businesses. Read more: L.A. council backs $30 minimum wage for hotels, despite warnings from tourism industry Then, on Friday, the council conducted a do-over vote, taking up the rewritten wage measure at a special noon meeting — one called only the day before. The result was the same, with the measure passing again, 12-3. Some in the hotel industry questioned why Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who runs the meetings, insisted on moving forward Wednesday, even after the lawyers' warning. Jackie Filla, president and chief executive of the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles, said the decision to proceed Wednesday gave a political boost to Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel workers. The union had already scheduled an election for Thursday for its members to vote on whether to increase their dues. By approving the $30 per hour minimum wage on Wednesday, the council gave the union a potent selling point for the proposed dues increase, Filla said. "It looks like it was in Unite Here's financial interest to have that timing," she said. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who opposed the wage increases, was more blunt. "It was clear that Marqueece intended to be as helpful as possible" to Unite Here Local 11, "even if it meant violating the Brown Act," she said. Harris-Dawson spokesperson Rhonda Mitchell declined to say why her boss pushed for a wage vote on Wednesday after receiving the legal advice about the Brown Act. That law requires local governments to take additional public comment if a legislative proposal has changed substantially during a meeting. Mitchell, in a text message, said Harris-Dawson scheduled the new wage vote for Friday because of a mistake by city lawyers. "The item was re-agendized because of a clerical error on the City Attorney's part — and this is the correction," she said. Mitchell did not provide details on the error. However, the wording on the two meeting agendas is indeed different. Read more: Faced with a $30 minimum wage, hotel investors start looking outside L.A. Wednesday's agenda called for the council to ask city lawyers to "prepare and present" amendments to the wage laws. Friday's agenda called for the council to "present and adopt" the proposed changes. Maria Hernandez, a spokesperson for Unite Here Local 11, said in an email that her union does not control the City Council's schedule. The union's vote on higher dues involved not just its L.A. members but also thousands of workers in Orange County and Arizona, Hernandez said. "The timing of LA City Council votes is not up to us (sadly!) — in fact we were expecting a vote more than a year ago — nor would the precise timing be salient to our members," she said. Hernandez said Unite Here Local 11 members voted "overwhelmingly" on Thursday to increase their dues, allowing the union to double the size of its strike fund and pay for "an army of organizers" for the next round of labor talks. She did not disclose the size of the dues increase. Dundas' memo, written on behalf of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, was submitted late in Wednesday's deliberations, after council members requested a number of changes to the minimum wage ordinance. At one point, they took a recess so their lawyers could work on the changes. By the time the lawyers emerged with the new language, Dundas' memo was pinned to the public bulletin board in the council chamber, where spectators quickly snapped screenshots. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. council members were told a vote could violate public meeting law. They voted anyway
When Los Angeles City Council members took up a plan to hike the wages of tourism workers this week, they received some carefully worded advice from city lawyers: Don't vote on this yet. Senior Assistant City Atty. Michael J. Dundas advised them on Wednesday — deep into their meeting — that his office had not yet conducted a final legal review of the flurry of last-minute changes they requested earlier in the day. Dundas recommended that the council delay its vote for two days to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's open meeting law. 'We advise that the posted agenda for today's meeting provides insufficient notice under the Brown Act for first consideration and adoption of an ordinance to increase the wages and health benefits for hotel and airport workers,' Dundas wrote. The council pressed ahead anyway, voting 12-3 to increase the minimum wage of those workers to $30 per hour by 2028, despite objections from business groups, hotel owners and airport businesses. Then, on Friday, the council conducted a do-over vote, taking up the rewritten wage measure at a special noon meeting — one called only the day before. The result was the same, with the measure passing again, 12-3. Some in the hotel industry questioned why Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who runs the meetings, insisted on moving forward Wednesday, even after the lawyers' warning. Jackie Filla, president and chief executive of the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles, said the decision to proceed Wednesday gave a political boost to Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel workers. The union had already scheduled an election for Thursday for its members to vote on whether to increase their dues. By approving the $30 per hour minimum wage on Wednesday, the council gave the union a potent selling point for the proposed dues increase, Filla said. 'It looks like it was in Unite Here's financial interest to have that timing,' she said. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who opposed the wage increases, was more blunt. 'It was clear that Marqueece intended to be as helpful as possible' to Unite Here Local 11, 'even if it meant violating the Brown Act,' she said. Harris-Dawson spokesperson Rhonda Mitchell declined to say why her boss pushed for a wage vote on Wednesday after receiving the legal advice about the Brown Act. That law requires local governments to take additional public comment if a legislative proposal has changed substantially during a meeting. Mitchell, in a text message, said Harris-Dawson scheduled the new wage vote for Friday because of a mistake by city lawyers. 'The item was re-agendized because of a clerical error on the City Attorney's part — and this is the correction,' she said. Mitchell did not provide details on the error. However, the wording on the two meeting agendas is indeed different. Wednesday's agenda called for the council to ask city lawyers to 'prepare and present' amendments to the wage laws. Friday's agenda called for the council to 'present and adopt' the proposed changes. Maria Hernandez, a spokesperson for Unite Here Local 11, said in an email that her union does not control the City Council's schedule. The union's vote on higher dues involved not just its L.A. members but also thousands of workers in Orange County and Arizona, Hernandez said. 'The timing of LA City Council votes is not up to us (sadly!) — in fact we were expecting a vote more than a year ago — nor would the precise timing be salient to our members,' she said. Hernandez said Unite Here Local 11 members voted 'overwhelmingly' on Thursday to increase their dues, allowing the union to double the size of its strike fund and pay for 'an army of organizers' for the next round of labor talks. She did not disclose the size of the dues increase. Dundas' memo, written on behalf of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, was submitted late in Wednesday's deliberations, after council members requested a number of changes to the minimum wage ordinance. At one point, they took a recess so their lawyers could work on the changes. By the time the lawyers emerged with the new language, Dundas' memo was pinned to the public bulletin board in the council chamber, where spectators quickly snapped screenshots.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Catholic Athletic Assn. meeting ends in dispute over Mission League proposal
The Catholic Athletic Assn., made up of 25 high schools, voted for new leagues as part of a four-year cycle on Wednesday, but the meeting ended in disagreement, disputes and a threat that Mission League schools might leave the organization. Terry Barnum, head of athletics at Harvard-Westlake, submitted two re-leaguing plans as proposals but asked they be withdrawn as had been done in the past. It was refused. One of the plans was adopted by a 14-11 vote for football only, and now Barnum vows to appeal on procedural grounds and believes his fellow Mission League members will look to leave the CAA and form their own area. Barnum and other Mission League representatives wanted the football-only proposal pulled. The fact it wasn't could cause Mission League schools to pull out of the CAA, Barnum said. Advertisement He said that eight years ago in the last CAA meeting on reconfiguring league members, proposals were allowed to be withdrawn, setting a precedent. "We believe precedent and procedures were not followed," Barnum said. "What today showed is that there's an ideological difference and divide in parochial schools and the Mission League," he said. "We will never be in position to control our own destiny and rules will be bent and circumvented in order for the Mission League not to control our destiny." Barnum is well-respected within the CIF hierarchy as a member of the Southern Section executive committee and CAA executive committee. He said he plans to appeal the decision to the Southern Section but first must receive support from fellow Mission League members. His philosophy is to keep Mission League schools together for almost all sports. They are Harvard-Westlake, Crespi, Sierra Canyon, Sherman Oaks Notre Dame, Loyola, St. Francis, Bishop Alemany and Chaminade. The CAA meeting was originally scheduled for last Wednesday, then changed after supposedly not enough time had been given as notice to satisfy the Brown Act. Barnum said he believes the delay was designed to "allow a group of schools to rally themselves around a plan" they wanted. Advertisement Sign up for the L.A. Times SoCal high school sports newsletter to get scores, stories and a behind-the-scenes look at what makes prep sports so popular. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
14-05-2025
- Sport
- Los Angeles Times
Catholic Athletic Assn. meeting ends in dispute over Mission League proposal
The Catholic Athletic Assn., made up of 25 high schools, voted for new leagues as part of a four-year cycle on Wednesday, but the meeting ended in disagreement, disputes and a threat that Mission League schools might leave the organization. Terry Barnum, head of athletics at Harvard-Westlake, submitted two re-leaguing plans as proposals but asked they be withdrawn as had been done in the past. It was refused. One of the plans was adopted by a 14-11 vote for football only, and now Barnum vows to appeal on procedural grounds and believes his fellow Mission League members will look to leave the CAA and form their own area. Barnum and other Mission League representatives wanted the football-only proposal pulled. The fact it wasn't could cause Mission League schools to pull out of the CAA, Barnum said. He said that eight years ago in the last CAA meeting on reconfiguring league members, proposals were allowed to be withdrawn, setting a precedent. 'We believe precedent and procedures were not followed,' Barnum said. 'What today showed is that there's an ideological difference and divide in parochial schools and the Mission League,' he said. 'We will never be in position to control our own destiny and rules will be bent and circumvented in order for the Mission League not to control our destiny.' Barnum is well-respected within the CIF hierarchy as a member of the Southern Section executive committee and CAA executive committee. He said he plans to appeal the decision to the Southern Section but first must receive support from fellow Mission League members. His philosophy is to keep Mission League schools together for almost all sports. They are Harvard-Westlake, Crespi, Sierra Canyon, Sherman Oaks Notre Dame, Loyola, St. Francis, Bishop Alemany and Chaminade. The CAA meeting was originally scheduled for last Wednesday, then changed after supposedly not enough time had been given as notice to satisfy the Brown Act. Barnum said he believes the delay was designed to 'allow a group of schools to rally themselves around a plan' they wanted.
San Francisco Chronicle
02-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Civil rights attorneys slam Oakland school board over alleged ‘backroom deals' to oust superintendent
Civil rights attorneys blasted the Oakland school board Thursday for what it said was a failure to follow state law during its closed-door process to replace the superintendent, saying 'such actions should not be held in secret or flow from backroom deals.' The letter to the board from the ACLU of Northern California cited the April 9 meeting by the board during which a vote was taken in closed session regarding Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell's future with the district. President Jennifer Brouhard, however, reported after the session that 'the board took no final action.' Yet comments from other board members and subsequent actions by the board 'strongly suggests Brouhard failed to disclose what did happen: that the board took action to end her tenure early, negotiate a separation agreement and search for a new superintendent,' the ACLU letter said. And failing to notify the public of those actions would violate the Brown Act, which ensures public access to government meetings, wrote Shaila Nathu, senior staff attorney, and Angélica Salceda, program director, of the ACLU, of Northern California. Brouhard and district officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The legal admonishment by the the civil rights group adds to the growing strife in the district, with a bitterly split school board, a popular superintendent pushed out two years before the end of her contract, a teachers strike narrowly averted, a budget deficit and the administrators' union accusing the teachers union of harassment and threatening behavior. Johnson-Trammell hasn't been seen at a school board meeting in more than a month. Meanwhile, most students continue to struggle academically: One-third of Oakland students in 2024 met or exceeded English standards and a quarter met or exceeded grade-level standards in math. The board had extended the superintendent's contract by two years in August, with Brouhard supporting the decision. Despite the extension, the school board has been meeting frequently in closed session to discuss her position, according to school board members. Yet on April 23, following a closed session, the public was made aware that the superintendent was on her way out, with Brouhard announcing a 4-3 vote to approve the voluntary separation agreement with Johnson-Trammell. The ACLU attorneys chastised the board for what they said was a secretive process. 'While a formal vote as to the terms of the separation was not taken until April 23, it seems clear that, by that date, the Board had already taken several steps in furtherance of the separation plan it had generated behind closed doors,' according to the ACLU letter. The Brown Act should be interpreted in favor of "openness," the attorneys continued, to 'suppress the mischief at which it is directed.' 'Decisions regarding District leadership — particularly those concerning the Superintendent — are of vital public importance,' Nathu and Salceda wrote. 'Such decisions should not be kept in secret. The failure to disclose action taken in closed session undermines public confidence and may sow chaos if the Board's actions are ultimately nullified.' The ACLU letter urged the board to 'change course,' citing a student who spoke at the April 9 meeting. 'I am (one of) the only teenagers in the room not because I'm the only student who cares but because there has been no meaningful work being done to inform us, let alone involve us, in decisions being made about us,' the student said during public comment. 'That is not just disappointing but (also) unjust.'
