My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 11B
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2016
>
06/21/2016
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 11B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2016 3:11:08 PM
Creation date
7/7/2016 1:04:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
June 21, 2015 <br />Mayor Miguel Pulido <br />Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento <br />Councilmember Michele Martinez <br />Councilmember Angelica Amezcua <br />Councilmember David Benavides <br />Councilmember Roman A. Reyna <br />Councilmember Sal Tinajero <br />City Council <br />City of Santa Ana <br />Dear Mayor and Council, <br />This letter is to call your attention to what I believe was a substantial violation of a central <br />provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act, one which may jeopardize the finality of the action taken <br />by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana. <br />The nature of the violation is as follows: In its meeting of June 7, 2016, the City Council took <br />action by formal vote to approve Item # 75F-1, which included: <br />1. The FY 2016-2017 Budget Ordinance on first reading; <br />2. The Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program beginning FY 2016-2017; and, <br />3. A Resolution amending and reestablishing the City's Classification and Compensation <br />Plan. <br />The action taken was not in compliance with the Brown Act because: the hearing was not <br />properly administered; I completed and delivered a public speaker card that was in the Mayor's <br />possession at the time of Council action but public comment was not received until after <br />Council voted; the Clerk alerted the Mayor to the oversight multiple times but the hearing was <br />not reopened nor was a motion to reconsider entertained as a quorum dissolved upon the <br />completion of my remarks; and, there was no finding of fact made by the City Council that <br />urgent action was necessary on a matter unforeseen at the time the agenda was posted. <br />In the event it appears to you that the conduct of the City Council specified herein did not <br />amount to the taking of action, I call your attention to Section 54952.6, which defines "action <br />taken" for the purposes of the Act expansively, i.e. as: <br />"[A] collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a <br />collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to <br />make a positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a <br />legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, <br />order or ordinance." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.