|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. INTRODUCTION 1. Petitioners JUDY DUNLAP, as an individual, CECIL M. CARPIO, an individual; ALDENE SLIGH, an individual petition this court for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus (C.C.P. 1085) pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Act (Government Code § 54950, et seq.; the "Brown Act") and the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250, et seq.; the "CPRA"), directed the Respondents City of Inglewood a municipal corporation, and the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency, and Joseph T. Rouzan, Jr., as the city administrator of the City of Inglewood, and as the executive director of the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency in this verified petition allege: 2. Petitioner Judy Dunlap is, and at all times material herein, has been a Councilmember from District Two of the City, a member of the City Council, a resident of the City and a taxpayer in the City. Petitioner Dunlap is a person with standing to bring this action under the CPRA. 3. Petitioner Cecil M. Carpio is, and at all times material herein, has been a resident of and taxpayer in the City of Inglewood. Petitioner Carpio is an interested person with standing to bring this action under the Brown Act. 4. Petitioner Aldene Slight is, and at all times material herein, has been a resident of and taxpayer in the City of Inglewood. Petitioner Slight is an interested person with standing to bring this action under the Brown Act and the CPRA. 5. Respondent City is a charter city created and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of California, and is a local agency under the CPRA, required to comply with both the Brown Act and the CPRA. 6. Respondent Inglewood Redevelopment Agency is a governmental entity that is subject to the Brown Act and the CPRA. 7. Respondent Joseph T. Rouzan, Jr., is the city administrator of the City of Inglewood, and the executive director of the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency, and is named as such in his representative capacity, and is the authorized representative of the d Respondent City and Redevelopment Agency. 8. DOES through 10 were at all times relevant herein the employees, agents, or otherwise in privity with the remaining Respondents Petitioners are ignorant of the true names and capacities of respondents sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioners will ask leave of this court to amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities when ascertained. 9. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the Doe respondents herein was, at all times relevant to this action, the agent or employee or in privity with the remaining Respondents, and was acting within the course and scope of that relationship Petitioners are further informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the respondents herein gave consent to, ratified, and authorized the acts alleged herein to each of the remaining respondents. 2. THE CPRA CLAIMS 10. This action challenges violations of the CPRA, committed by Respondents in refusing to produce public records for inspection to Petitioner Dunlap, and to provide requested copies of public records to Petitioner Sligh, as follows. 11. On November 27, 2001, prior to the regular meeting of the Inglewood City Council scheduled for that date, Petitioner Dunlap presented herself to the Respondents' Department of Finance and requested to view three (3) checks: namely, Check No. 630215 payable to Costco; and, Check Nos. 264019 (in the amount of $13,995.00) and 264022 (in the amount of $12,840.00) - both payable to Inglewood Mayor Roosevelt Dorn Said checks -- together with the backup documents normally attached to checks being submitted for approval by the Inglewood City Council -- are public records kept by said Department. 12. Petitioner Dunlap sought to view these public records which were listed on Respondents' Voucher Payment Check Register. 13. The head of Respondents' Department of Finance and the deputy city treasurer refused to permit Petitioner to view Cheek. Nos, 630215, 264019 and 264022. 14. Respondents' refusal to permit Petitioner Dunlap to view Check Nos. 631215, 264019 and 264022 (and their backup materials), Petitioner was forced to vote an the approval of these checks without sufficient information to enable Petitioner Dunlap to determine the purposes of the payments. 15. On or about December 4, 2001, Petitio0ner Sligh made a written request for copies of check Nos. 264019 (in the amount of $13,995.00) and 264022 (in the amount of $12,840.00) -- both payable to Inglewood Mayor Roosevelt Dorn, "and all associated documents, i.e.: A. Check requisition forms for all paperwork associated with these two checks [and] B. All supporting documents (such as handwritten notes, e-mails, phone messages, Journal entries specifically related to these two checks)." A true and correct copy of Petitioner Sligh's written request is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 16. Respondents have failed to produce the documents requested by Petitioner Sligh, or to explain why said documents were not produced. 17. Government Code 6253(a) provides, in part, that "Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the... local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record." Gov't Code 6253(b) provides, in part, that upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes the record, the agency "shall make the records promptly available to any person [.]" Government Code 6252.5 provides, in part, that "an elected member... of any local agency is entitled to access to public records of that agency on the same basis as any other person." 18. Petitioners Dunlap and Sligh seek a determination from this court that the City's refusal to allow them access to inspect or copies of the public records listed in this petition was improper, and a writ requiring the City to permit Petitioners to view said public records and to obtain a copy of the records requested. 3. THE BROWN ACT CLAIMS A. Preventing the Videotaping of Open Sessions 19. On January 29, 2002, a volunteer camera operator attempted to videotape the regular open meeting of the Inglewood City Council with professional videotape equipment supplied by Community Access, AT&T Broadband. 20. Prior to the start of the regular session, a uniformed police officer ordered the operator to remove the video camera from the tripod holding it. The operator then placed the camera on an empty folding chair so that he could videotape the meeting for broadcast on the Community Access Channel 35. The uniformed officer again approached the camera operator and ordered him to remove the camera from the chair because that constituted "mounted equipment" purportedly forbidden by the rules of the City of Inglewood. Because of the weight of the camera, the operator could not hold the camera for the duration of the Council meeting which took several hours; therefore, the meeting could not be videotaped. 21. The City also prevented other members of the public (including Petitioner Carpio) from videotaping regular open sessions of the Inglewood City Council on January 15 and 22, and on February 12, 2002, by refusing permission to use a tripod to support video cameras. 22. The prevention of a member of the public from videotaping a public session of the City Council meeting violated Gov't Code § 54953.5(a) which provides, in pertinent part, that: "Any person attending an open meeting of a legislative body . . . Shall have the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video tape recorder[.]" 23. The prevention of a member of the public from videotaping the public session of the January ?9, 2002, City Council meeting for broadcast on Community Access, Channel 5 also violated Gov't Code § 34953.6 which provides, in pertinent part, that: "No legislative body . . . shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the broadcast of its open and public meetings in the absence of a reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceeding." 24. None of the attempts to videotape the public sessions of Council meetings on January 15 or 22, or 29, or on February 12, 2002„ constituted an obstruction o1 view or an interference with the proceedings; and, there were no reasonable (or any) finding made to the contrary bar the City Council to justify the refusal to permit the videotaping on those occasions. 25. On February 12 and February l3. 2002, Petitioners Sligh and Carpio sent letters to the City demanding that the City cease prevention of the use of video equipment with tripods to videotape open sessions of Council meetings. Respondents have made no responses to these letters. True and correct copies of these letters are attached hereto as Exhibits "" and "C," respectively, and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Refusal to Permit Public Testimony 26. On December 11, 2001, January 29, 2002, and February 12, 200'2, the Chair of the City Council (acting also as the Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency) refused to permit public testimony on matters being considered jointly by the City Council and Inglewood Redevelopment Agency, namely: proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Inglewood Redevelopment project and proposed amendment to the. Implementation Plan. 27. Public testimony was only permitted on the above--described items in the Joint Meeting of the Council and the Redevelopment Agency at the January 15, 2002, public meeting. 28. On the February 12, 2002, open session on the City Council and the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency, the agenda also contained the following agenda items: Recommendation: a) Adopt Resolution (A) regarding use of taxes
Recommendation: a) Motion to waive further reading. b) Introduce ordinances: (A) approving and adopting the 6th Amendment to the In-Town Redevelopment Project; (B) approving and adopting the 6th Amendment to the LaCienega Redevelopment Project; (C) approving and adopting the 5th Amendment to the Century Redevelopment Project; (D) approving and adopting the 3rd Amendment to the Imperial-Prairie Redevelopment Project. 29. No public testimony was permitted on these matters at all. 30. Prohibiting public testimony at a regular meeting of the City Council and Inglewood Redevelopment Agency violated Gov't Code 54954.3 which provides, in pertinent part, that: "Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public..." 31 On February 13, 2002, Petitioner Sligh sent a letter to the City demanding that the City admit that completely prohibiting members of the public from speaking at a public hearing was in violation of the Brown Act. (Exhibit "C".) Respondents have made no responses to this letter. C. Illegal Closed Session to Retain Counsel 32. The agenda for the February 12, 2002, City Council open meeting contained the following entry: "Closed session-Agreement with Kane, Balmer & Berkman to provide legal representation to the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency." 33. Petitioners are informed and believe that on February 12, the members of the City Council went into closed session to discuss a contract for the retention by the Redevelopment Agency of the firm of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, including the rate of compensation to be paid the firm. The agenda stated that the closed session was authorized as pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). 34. There is no exception in the Brown Act for discussion of contracts in closed session. The attorney client privilege is explicitly abrogated pursuant to Government Code Sec. 54956.9 except as specifically set forth. In addition, there was no exception in the Brown Act permitting the members to discuss compensation in closed session. Finally the retention of the Kane Balmer firm by the Redevelopment Agency did not appear on the Redevelopment Agency agenda; and, the City Council did not have the authority- -acting as the City Council-to retain the Kane Balmer firm for the Redevelopment Agency The retention of the Kane Balmer firm was an ultra vires act There was and is no exception that authorized the closed session. 35. By letter dated February 13, 2002, petitioner Sligh wrote to the Redevelopment Board stating that the closed session was in violation of Sections 54953 and 54956.9 and demanding the Board cure or correct the discussion and approval of the contract. (Exhibit "C. ") Respondents have made no response to this letter. 36. These examples of violations of the CPRA and the Brown Act represent a pattern and practice by the City of Inglewood which threatens to continue in the future unless halted by order of this court. WHEREFORE: 1 . After a hearing on the motion for a peremptory writ, that a peremptory writ issue under seal of this court, Petitioners seek a writ as follows: (A) For an injunction against Respondents compelling the prompt production of the following documents (1) Check Nos. 630215, 264019 and 264022, and the supporting public records attached to said checks on November 27, 2001; (2) All associated documents, i.e.: check requisition forms for all paperwork associated with Check Nos. 264019 and 264022; and, all supporting documents (such as handwritten notes, e-mails, phone messages, Journal entries specifically related to these two checks). (B) For an injunction against Respondents requiring prompt compliance with the California Public Records Act as to Petitioners' requests, as provided by law; (C) For an injunction against Respondents requiring that the City permit videotaping, including the use of a tripod in the videotaping, of open sessions of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency, and any other legislative body (as defined in Gov't' Code § 54952) of the City, unless a specific "reasonable" finding is made that the videotaping cannot continue without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings. (D) For a declaration that the City and the Redevelopment Agency violated the Brown Act by refusing to allow public testimony at the December 11, 2001, January 29, 2002, and February 12, 2002, public hearings; and for an injunction, requiring the City to permit public testimony as required by the Brown Act at every public hearing of the City Council and. the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency; (E) For a declaration that the City violated the Brown Act at February 1.2, 2002, open meeting in considering and acting upon agenda item concerning the retention of Kane, Balmer & Berkman for the Redevelopment Agency because the closed session was improperly held on said item, and because the City Council's action was all ultra vires act; (F) Determining that the City's action at the February 12, 2002, retaining Kane, Balmer & Berkman is null and void; (G) For attorneys' fees pursuant to Gov't Code § 6259, Got Code § 54960.5 and C.C.P. § 1021.5; (H) For costs incurred herein; and, (I) for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: March, 2002
By
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Further inquiries can be forwarded to: |
||||||||||||||||||||