200 Cal. App. 4th 972
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Petitioners Californians Aware and McKee sue the Los Angeles Community College District (District) and the Joint Labor/Management Benefits Committee (JLMBC) alleging Brown Act public notice/open meeting violations.
- Trial court held JLMBC not subject to the Brown Act under Education Employment Relations Act (EERA) section 3549.1(a) because JLMBC serves collective bargaining purposes.
- Master Benefits Agreement (2002) created the JLMBC to oversee District health benefits and costs, with a defined composition including District members and employee representatives.
- JLMBC’s scope included reviewing/altering health benefits, consultants, providers, and communications, and required Board submission for any changes.
- Board rule 101702.10 adopted to formalize JLMBC creation and operation; JLMBC was created as part of collective bargaining under EERA.
- Petition sought a peremptory writ/declaratory relief declaring JLMBC a Brown Act “legislative body”; the Attorney General issued opinions supporting non-application of the Brown Act to JLMBC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the JLMBC a Brown Act “legislative body”? | McKee asserts JLMBC is created by the District and thus a legislative body. | District/Respondents contend JLMBC is part of the collective bargaining process and not a Brown Act body. | JLMBC is not subject to the Brown Act. |
| Does EERA section 3549.1(a) exemption apply to JLMBC? | Exemption does not apply because JLMBC is not a public school employer negotiating. | Exemption applies since JLMBC operates within the EERA collective bargaining framework. | Yes, the exemption applies; JLMBC is not governed by the Brown Act. |
| Did creation of JLMBC through collective bargaining bar Brown Act application? | Creation by Master Agreement brings JLMBC within disclosure requirements. | Creation via collective bargaining places JLMBC within the EERA framework, not public litigation. | Creation through collective bargaining places JLMBC outside Brown Act disclosure requirements. |
| Did petitioners preserve any claim under section 3547.6 (EERA open/notice provisions) by not exhausting remedies? | Petitioners argued for Brown Act compliance and open discussion. | Section 3547.6 concerns EERA; petitioners did not exhaust remedies. | Forfeited; no reach of section 3547.6 issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improv. Dist., 87 Cal.App.4th 862 (Cal. App. 2001) (test for body creation under Brown Act—“brought into existence” by action of a legislative body)
- International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., 69 Cal.App.4th 287 (Cal. App. 1999) (relevance to “created by” concept in Brown Act context)
- Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Dist., 18 Cal.App.4th 781 (Cal. App. 1993) (limits on school district committees created under policy processes)
- Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System, 6 Cal.4th 821 (Cal. 1993) (weight of Attorney General opinions in interpreting Brown Act expectations)