Laserfiche WebLink
OFFICE OF THE C:LTY ATTORNEY <br />OPINION NO. 73- 61 <br />SEPTEMBER 11, 1973 <br />SUBJECT: Brown Act: Abiiity of City Council to approve <br />in executive session employment of representative <br />in Washington, D. C. <br />REQUESTED BY: Clerk of the Council <br />OPINION BY: James A. Withers, City Attorney <br />BY: Richard E. Lay, Deputy City Attorney <br />QUESTION .1: May the City Counr.~1 in executive session, <br />discu;~s and take act ic: ~ ;. _ r+, the employment <br />of a representative in Wasr.~ngton, D. C.? <br />ANSWER: Yes. <br />ANALYSIS <br />The City Counc~.l desire:c to consider the employment of an <br />individual as rG~preseratative in Washington, D.C. to serve as <br />~~ d.ohbyist for the City's interest. The employment is to be <br />~' as a joint representative for the City of Santa Ana and certain <br />other nearby cities, including the City of Garden Grove. <br />Sect~fon 54957 of the Government Code, contained within <br />the chapter of that code commonly referred to as the Brown <br />Act, reads in part as follows: <br />"Nothing contained in this chapter shall be <br />construed to prevent the legislative body of any <br />local agency ... from holding executive sessions <br />during a regular or special meeting to consider <br />the appointment, employment ar dismissal of a <br />public officer or employee by another public <br />officer, person or employee unless such officer <br />or employee requests a public hearing." <br />The position of a Washington representative or lobbyist <br />is not that of a public "of¢ice", but it does appear to be <br />within the concept of "employee" as used in section 54957. <br />The Manly basis for an argument to the contrary would be the <br />contentions that the position is one of an "independent con- <br />* ractor'" , aR d i~at z nc~. f r cym an '' e:rp loyee" , and that independent <br />contractors arc not within the ~c~~pe of the section. <br />]23 <br />