*1 Dec. S029178. [No. 1993.] NEWSPAPERS, INC.,
FREEDOM Plaintiff and v. Appellant, ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD DIRECTORS, OF Defendant and Respondent.
Counsel Cain, Helsing and Duffern H. Mark Mark Wray & Wray, Helsing Plaintiff and Appellant. Jr., Fuson, Allison, Judith L. Newton, W. Harold Renee C.
Thomas W. Davis, Sutro, P. Bruns, Edward Fanshaw, Madison & Foust Pillsbury, Debra and Alexander, James M. Jr., Wagstaffe White & Cooper, Cooper, Judy of Plaintiff and Appellant. Amici Curiae on behalf Kassman as Martin Rubin, Andrus, Counsel, County Deputy H. and Donald County C. Terry Counsel, for Defendant Respondent. Mukai, General, Chief Assistant L. Robert Attorney
Daniel E. Lungren, General, Joel General, Attorney Assistant Huntington, John M. Attorney General, Prim, Attorneys Primes, Deputy and Ted Eaton-May Denise S. Parent, & Peter N. Brown and Amici Hatch G. Curiae Kelly McIntyre behalf Defendant Respondent.
Opinion *3 1, PANELLI, J. (Stats. 1953, 1588, Brown ch. M. Act Ralph p. The § Code, codified as Gov. 54950 et Brown the the Act or seq. [hereafter Act])1 that all of provides “the a local legislative body agency shall and open as otherwise in the Act. public,” except provided 54953.) (§ At all times relevant this case the Act contained four separate definitions of We review to whether “legislative body.”2 granted determine Operations Committee of Retirement Board of Orange County (hereafter Board) Retirement Employees System is a “legislative body” and, therefore, within Act meaning Brown to the Act’s subject statutory 1All references are to the Government Code unless otherwise noted. law changing A new provisions relevant of the Government was while Code enacted (Sen. (1993-1994 Sess.), pending. this case was Reg. Bill No. 1140 Stats. eff. 1, 1994.) Apr. impact post. The of the new law Except is addressed in footnote that footnote, version, i.e., all opinion references to the Government Code in this are to the current the law as it will be until Senate Bill No. April 1140 takes effect on 1994. board, chapter, ‘legislative 2Section 54952: “As used in body’ governing this means commission, thereof, body or agency, any directors of a local or board or commission and board, commission, committee, any shall include body or other on which local officers of a serve agency in their capacity supported part official as members and which is in whole or in board, commission, by provided by agency, funds body such whether such committee or other organized operated by is and agency by private such local or a corporation.” board, chapter, Section 54952.2: “As used in ‘legislative body’ this any also means commission, committee, or similar body any multimember which of a authority exercises legislative body agency delegated legislative body.” of a local by to it chapter[,] ‘legislative body’ advisory Section 54952.3: “As used in this also includes commission, charter, advisory body agency, by committee or a local created ordinance, resolution, by any legislative body or formal of a of a similar action or member commissions, agency. Meetings of a local of such or [¶] concerning subjects require bodies and do not an examination of facts data outside territory agency of the local territory agency shall be held within the of the local and shall be open public, and and notice thereof must be mail at 24 hours personally by delivered least before the time meeting person requested, writing, of such to each who such has notice of commission, meeting. body holding If the provide committee or elects to for the [¶] regular meetings, provide by bylaws, it shall or whatever other rule is utilized business, advisory body for the place holding regular conduct of its for the time and meetings. regular meetings No other required. ‘Legislative body’ notice is defined in [¶] solely this section does not include a composed committee of members of which are governing body. provisions less than a of such The [¶] 54954, 54955, 54955.1, apply meetings Sections shall under this section.” includes, chapter],] Section “As used in ‘legislative body’ 54952.5: also but is not to, commissions, commissions, boards, planning library perma- limited recreation and other agency.” nent boards or of a commissions Because the Committee is an advi Operations open meeting requirements. committee of Board members less than a solely numbering sory Board, we hold that the committee is not a “legislative body” of section and is excluded from thereby pursuant provisions of the Act. open meeting requirements
I. Facts The Retirement Orange County Employees System governed by Five the Board nine-member Board. members of constitute quorum. Board is a “local and a under sections agency” “legislative body” The Board is therefore respectively. the Brown Act. The chairman of the Board has created five benefit, investment, estate, *4 real and liai- advisory3 committees—operations, the members serve son—each of four members of Board. Some review various on more than one committee. The committees’ function is to related to the business of the Board and to make recommendations to matters The Board considers the committees’ recommen- the full Board for action. there is an for full dations in at which time meetings, opportunity public The do not have decisionmak- any discussion and debate. committees public act in an “advisory” and ing authority only capacity.4 18, 1991, Committee met to formulate a list of On June the Operations to the Board’s travel Freedom Newspapers recommended changes policy. the the but the committee denied on to attend sought meeting permission of the that it was not to the subject open meeting requirements ground “advisory.” properly are described as parties dispute 3The do not these committees concerning composition and function of the committees is a only 4The evidence the system. of the retirement The declaration states: declaration the administrator Retirement, including Operations Board of the 4. . . . All of the committees of the “[¶] Committee, Retirement. The Board of comprised solely are of members of Board of However, members, the committees of the Retirement nine and a is five. none of has members, and all committee members comprised Retirement are of more than four Board of 5. The function of such committees is of the Board of Retirement. also members ...[¶] Retirement, make the Board of and review various matters related to the business of delegated any the full Board for action. The committees have not been recommendations to in and make recommen decision-making authority. capacity, The committees act an The full Board considers those recommendations dations to the full Board of Retirement. and debate on opportunity public an for full discussion public meetings, at which time there is by the Chairman of the Board of The committees are formed those recommendations. 6. [¶] which members of operate, what shall and Retirement. The Chairman determines authority to The Chairman has the Board Retirement shall serve on such committees. committees, committees, There is existing or combine committees. existing new abolish form committees, or the duties number of Board regulation prescribes rule no Board committee; to decide what of the Board of Retirement up it is to the Chairman formed, them.” and who will committees shall be serve Brown The next Act. June full Board met in a session at day, public which the chairman of the Committee read and Operations explained attendance, committee’s recommendations. The inwas there was press and discussion public the Board’s members about the among recommendations. The Board voted to one ultimately eight public session to accept recommendations.
On the same Freedom day, the trial for a Newspapers court writ petitioned of mandate alleging Committee is Operations open Brown Act. The court trial denied petition and judgment entered in favor of the Board. Freedom Newspapers appealed from that judgment, and the Court of granted reversed. We Appeal Board’s for review. petition
II. Discussion Act Brown was to ensure the attend adopted public’s right (§ 54950.)5 agencies. The Act meet provides that “[a]ll ings legislative shall public, all shall be persons attend permitted any meeting a local as otherwise agency, except (§ 54953.) in this provided As chapter.” *5 noted, already “legislative body” is defined in four sections of the two 54952, of which to the (§§ case before us. pertain 54952.3.) Section 54952 that provides committee or on which officers of body a local agency serve in their official and which is capacity its supported by appointing (§ is a agency “legislative 54952.)6 body.” Section 54952.3 more specifically addresses “As “advisory” bodies: used in this chapter[,] ‘legislative body’ commission, also includes any or advisory committee charter, ordinance, resolution, of a local created body agency, by any similar formal action of a or member of a legislative of body a local . . agency. ‘Legislative . in this does body’ [¶] [¶] defined not include committee solely members governing of of of provides: enacting chapter, Legislature 5Section “In this finds and declares that commissions, public agencies boards and councils and the other in this State exist to aid in the of people’s conduct business. It is the intent the law that their actions be openly taken their openly, people deliberations conducted The this State do [¶] yield sovereignty agencies their people, delegating The serve them. authority, give do not their public right good people servants the what to decide is to know good and what is not remaining for them to know. The people insist on informed so that they may retain control they over the instruments have created.” ante, 6For the full text of section see 2. footnote a local which are less than a agency body.” 54952.3,7 (§ added.) italics in this case over the disagree parties meaning explicit contained in section The Board and less-than-a-quorum exception 54952.3. curiae, General, its amici that an including Attorney argue committee that excluded from the definition of under “legislative body” the exception is from the completely exempt open meeting requirements the Act.8 Freedom amici opposition, its curiae contend that the Newspapers in section
less-than-a-quorum 54952.3 less-than- exception merely exempts committees from the a-quorum relaxed special, procedural requirements Freedom, section 54952.3. According such committees remain the stricter open meeting generally applicable bodies” under section 54952.
When a statute our interpreting task is to determine the primary Legisla (Brown ture’s (1989) intent. v. Co. Kelly Broadcasting Cal.3d 406].) In 771 P.2d so we turn first to the Cal.Rptr. doing statutory [257 since the words the language, Legislature chose are the best indicators of its (Adoption Kelsey intent. S. 1 Cal.4th 826 Cal.Rptr.2d 1216].) P.2d Each asserts that the of section party language its view. supports that, Freedom reasons had the intended to less-than-a- Legislature exempt committees from the Act’s it quorum advisory open meeting requirements, “ have would used such as this: bodies’ as defined in language ‘legislative include a chapter shall not committee of members of composed solely which are less than a of such governing body section,” Because the used the words “in this governing body.” Legislature *6 “in instead of the effect of the chapter,” exception, less-than-a-quorum Freedom, to is to exclude committees according simply less-than-a-quorum from the terms of section rather than from other definitions of 54952.3 within the Act. “legislative body” contrast, that, Board argues because section 54952.3 specifically committee,”
refers to . . . that section alone “any advisory governs advisory 54952.3, ante, 7For the full text of section see footnote 2. generally subjects 8Like the Brown Federal Committee Act Advisory 1972 770, amended, (86 advisory open meeting requirements. committees to 5 Stat. as U.S.C.S. However, act, amended, 1-15.) “any Appen. specifically exempts the same also §§ as [advi sory] composed wholly employees committee which is of full-time officers or of the Federal 3(2)(C)(iii).) (5 open meeting requirements. Appen. Government” from the U.S.C.S.
827 committees for the of the Act. To its purposes support interpretation relies, Board' in on the part, traditional rules of construction that statutory (San govern statutes statutes Francisco specific general Taxpayers Assn. v. 571, 245, 2 (1992) Board Supervisors Cal.4th 577 828 P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d [7 147]; see (1987) also v. Marin Dist. 193 Hospital Cal.App.3d Yoffie 502]; (1977) 750-753 v. Cal.Rptr. Kennedy City Cal.App.3d [238 of Ukiah that, 207]) and to the extent a statute is Cal.Rptr. specific [138 inconsistent with statute general the same covering subject potentially matter, the statute must be read as an specific exception to the more general (Common statute Cause Board Supervisors v. Cal.3d 610]; Dist., 111 P.2d v. Cal.Rptr. Hospital Marin supra, Yoffie 751). Board, at Cal.App.3d p. According to the an committee that is excluded from definition in “legislative body” contained section 54952.3 the Act’s if open meeting even it requirements, otherwise the more might satisfy definition of general “legislative body” in contained section 54952.
The Board also argues Freedom’s of section 54952 interpretation 54952.5, would sections deprive well 54952.2 as as less-than-a- 54952.3, in quorum exception To sections meaning. explain, 54952.2 54952.5 include purport certain bodies within the only definition For “legislative body.” Legislature to have enacted those statutes would made have no sense if the bodies governmental described therein had already been included in the more definition general “legislative contained body” in section 54952. sure,
beTo one could argue section still have some 54952.3 might under meaning Freedom’s interpretation. Because section gives 54952.3 certain bodies the benefit of that are less procedural requirements than the stringent bodies” under applicable section under Freedom’s interpretation contained exception section 54952.3 for would less-than-a-quorum have stricter, effect subjecting committees to the generally applicable procedural requirements.
But Freedom’s of section would also result in interpretation 54952.3 If absurdity. we construed less-than-a- merely exempting committees from the less quorum advisory rigid procedural requirements *7 section, a even ad hoc committee temporary, composed solely of than a of less to all quorum would of governing body subject Brown Act’s generally requirements, applicable procedural including (§ 54954.) that committees hold a requirement “regular” Yet meetings. 828 committee, definition, ad hoc does not hold meet- “regular”
temporary, by (Amador We will not a statute an absurd Valley ings. give interpretation. 208, (1978) v. 22 Cal. Joint Sch. Dist. State Bd. 3d High Equalization Union 239, 1281]; (1944) Cal.2d 245 583 P.2d v. Jordan 23 Cal.Rptr. Gage [149 794, 387]; (1985) P.2d v. Bd. 164 Lynch Equalization 800 State [147 94, 335].) 114 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [210
Freedom to avoid the absurdity by characterizing Operations attempts However, Committee as a neither section nor committee. 54952 standing between ad hoc committees and 54952.3 distinguishes committees. We will not add to a statute a distinction standing advisory Proc., 1858; see, (Code that has been omitted. Civ. e.g., Security § Pacific 991, 201, National Bank 51 800 v. Wozab Cal.3d 998 Cal.Rptr. [275 557].) P.2d case, we consider
When a statute is this ambiguous, typically the statute evidence of the intent the words of Legislature’s beyond (Dyna Med, 1379, (1987) Cal.3d 1387 Inc. v. Fair & Com. Employment Housing 1323]) both to the legislative history 743 P.2d and look Cal.Rptr. (ibid.). the statute and to the wider historical circumstances of its enactment to and An examination of the of the Brown both after history prior 54952.3, shows that committees of less than comprised enactment of section have been considered exempt of the legislative body generally quorum from the Act’s open meeting requirements. General, version of section original
In the Attorney interpreting 54952,9 of committees of local where agencies concluded that “meetings are not such committees consist of less than a legislative body quorum Law, (Secret covered the act.” Meeting Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. that, (1958).) reasoned those cases findings General Attorney “[i]n a committee have not been deliberated upon by full as well as the opportunity, legislative body necessity, (Ibid.) still remains.” deliberation adhered to the view stated consistently General have Successive Attorneys wrote that have General Attorney in the 1958 “[w]e opinion. than a of less concluded that committees consistently on a basis them and not established creating permanent the legislative body to the open for a function are continuing ‘legislative body’ means the chapter, provided: 9In “As used 1958 section 54952 commission, board, agency, board or commis a local directors or 3270.) (Stats. p. sion thereof.” *8 829 In lack of that Act. view of the on the of either the any pronouncements parts conclusion, the courts or which would a different our Legislature compel Gen., (Cal. opinion remains Letter unchanged.” Atty. Indexed No. IL 68-106 29, 1968).) (Apr.
More the specifically, since enactment of section the Attorney General has continuously recognized falling that within less-than-a-quorum in express “legis section 54952.3 not exception lative (See, bodies” within the Brown Act. Cal. meaning e.g., Atty. Gen., 30, (June Indexed Letter IL 1969); No. 69-131 Secret Meetings Laws 6-8; 1972) Public Applicable Agencies (Cal.Atty.Gen., Closed Meet pp. 820, (1980); 63 ings, Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. Open 823 64 Meeting Requirements, 856, (1981).) 857 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. General’s brief Attorney case view of his office. While the Attor supports long-standing General’s ney views do not bind (1980) us v. Court 102 (Unger Superior 681, 611]), 688 entitled Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. they are to considerable [162 weight (Meyer (1961) v. Board Trustees Cal.App.2d [15 717]). This Cal.Rptr. true since here especially Attorney General advises regularly many local about the agencies meaning Brown Act and a publishes manual designed assist governmental agencies with the Act’s complying (See, meeting requirements. e.g., Open Meeting 1989).) Laws (Cal.Atty.Gen.,
In
amended
not in
Legislature
the Brown
response
General’s
Attorney
recognition of an implicit less-than-a-quorum exception,
but in
to a
response
judicial opinion
eviscerated the Act
essentially
restrictively defining
terms
“meeting”
The court
“legislative body.”
in Adler v. City
(Adler)
Council
amending adding §§ §§ effect, 54960.) after the amendments took the Shortly 1961 General Attorney (Secret construed them as Adler several disapproving points. Meeting Law, (1963).) 42 61 the General Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. Specifically, Attorney concluded that the amendments Adler’s restrictive inter “disapproved the pretation of word that ‘meeting’ by recognizing criminally prohibited action legislative be taken at that fall far short of the may gatherings ‘ ’ ” “formal of the council as a assemblages deliberative sitting joint body” that the Adler decision which held that the act “repudiated portion was not meant to commissions or other bodies of an apply planning Law, (Secret nature.” at ‘advisory’ supra, Meeting Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., pp. 64-65.) above,
In addition to the set out of the Brown Act in the history history reflects a Legislature recognition less-than-a-quorum excep- implicit and, it, tion after consistent failure of to abolish the codifica- proposals tion of a limited version of that exception.
A bill would have abolished exception by providing “[a]ll committee or subcommittee of a whether any legislative body, or not the members shall be body, legislative and all shall to attend public, persons permitted any subcommittee, such committee or consideration of the matters during except (Assem. (1963 Sess.) set forth Section Bill No. 2334 Reg. 54957.” § added.) italics The bill did not pass. 54952.3, at in this of section issue legislative history provision
case, reveals another unsuccessful to abolish the less-than- attempt implicit 54952.3, (Stats. enacted in Section a-quorum exception. 2444), certain extended the of the Brown Act to p. coverage § However, at the same committees that were not covered. advisory previously time the an alternative bill that would have abolished rejected Legislature all making implicit less-than-a-quorum exception by to the full bodies. governing procedural requirements applicable (Sen. (1968 Sess.).)10 (Assem. Bill The bill did Bill No. 717 Reg. pass Sess.), 54952.3) be a (1968 codified as thus No. 202 Reg. appears of the Brown into the open meeting requirements compromise, incorporating by adding have amended the italicized words: 10Senate Bill No. 717 would section 54952 commission, board, ‘legislative body’ directors chapter, “As used in this means committee, commission, committee, board, or agency, any or committee, commission, thereof, board, body on or other and shall include subcommittee and which is capacity in their as members which officers of a local serve official board, agency, whether such part by provided supported in whole or funds were Act committees that included previously within but to those committees and relaxing procedural requirements applicable a limited version codifying implicit less-than-a-quorum exception. *10 To its view that the committees excluded from the definition of support in in “legislative body” section 54952.3 were included another definition of Freedom on a “legislative body,” relies communication Newspapers by to the members of Hayes the his Assemblyman Assembly reasons discussing for the drafting claimed less-than-a-quorum exception. Assemblyman Hayes “ reason enacting the less-than-a-quorum section exception ‘[t]he [for was that such committees of the governing body 54952.3] agency are covered another of the by M. Brown Government Ralph ” (4 (1968 However, Code Sess.) Sec. 54952.’ Assem. J. 7163.) Reg. p. these comments offer little in the assistance of section 54952.3 interpretation do because reflect they necessarily the views of other members of the who voted (Cf. for section assembly 54952.3. v. Delaney Court Superior 785, (1990) 801, 753, 50 Cal.3d fn. 12 934]; Cal.Rptr. P.2d see 789 [268 also Teachers v. (1981) Assn. San Diego Community Dist. College California 692, 856]; 28 Cal.3d 700-701 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 621 In re Marriage [170 of (1976) Bouquet 16 Cal.3d 589-590 1371].) 546 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [128
Indeed, the action in Legislature’s two since the enactment respects 1968 of section 54952.3 its indicates continuing understanding advisory committees of comprised less than a of solely quorum governing body from the exempt meeting of the open requirements Act.
First, although legislative is a weak acquiescence indication of legislative intent (1992) v. Escobar (People 3 Cal.4th 751 837 Cal.Rptr.2d [12 1100]), P.2d we note that the Legislature has allowed the of Court Appeal’s in Henderson v. opinion Board Education 78 Cal.App.3d of of Cal.Rptr. govern meetings advisory 568] commit less-than-a-quorum tees for the past years.
The Henderson court addressed issue an of whether squarely advisory members, committee of consisting solely board governing less constituting board, than a was from the quorum exempt open meeting requirements (78 Henderson, of the Act. 880-883.) at Cal.App.3d pp. ad hoc advisory had been committees created for the of the board of advising purpose education about to a qualifications candidates vacant appointment Each committees position. was members advisory composed solely commission, body organized committee or other operated (Sen. (1968 Sess.), private corporation.” Reg. Bill original.) No. italics in district less than a numbering school governing whether the committees court considered governing body. violated the Brown Act when evaluated candidates’ they qualifica had (Id. 877.) and interviewed candidates in sessions. at p. Finding tions private from the an provided express exemption that section 54952.3 of the Brown Act for comprised solely the Henderson court held that the body, less than a (78 to the Act. committees in that case were not Cal.App.3d 880-881.) at pp. and more Legislature attempted
Secondly, importantly, of the Brown Act by limiting coverage extend the coverage *11 to ad in section hoc advisory less-than-a-quorum exception express indication that the current This is the legislation strongest committees. commit excludes version of section 54952.3 less-than-a-quorum than from the the Act’s rather merely tees from open requirements, 31, in section On August 54952.3. less-stringent requirements procedural 1992, a bill and sent to Governor the California Legislature passed “ as follows: ‘Legisla less-than-a-quorum exception amending tive explicit not include a limited duration ad as defined in this section does
body’ of a local of members of the governing body hoc committee composed solely of the but does include body which are less than a agency a of its composition. committee of any standing governing body irrespective section, a committee’ means ‘standing permanent For of this purposes charter, ordinance, resolution, or similar formal action created or member of a legislative body of a legislative body (Assem. Bill. No. 3476 which holds scheduled regularly meetings.” bill, 3, Sess.) added.) The Governor vetoed this (1991-92 italics Reg. in view of the state’s would be too great that its economic reasoning impact “This bill would the Governor stated: outlook. In his veto message fiscal Brown Act relating in the M. Ralph make a number of changes law, the number expand agencies It would meetings. notice, recordation, I . . . and recordkeeping requirements. and expand [¶] while we are unable new mandating expensive requirements cannot approve (Governor’s veto to Assem. message on the books today.” afford the ones 20, (1991-1992 1992) 24 Reg. Recess J. No. Bill No. 3476 (Sept. on Assem. 10271, added.)11 italics Sess.) p. that is amending legislation of subsequent,
The Legislature’s adoption under- evidence of the Legislature’s vetoed be considered as may ultimately unamended, (See (1976) 16 Eu v. Chacon statute. existing of the standing (Stats. 10, 1993, signed Bill No. 1140 into law Senate 11OnOctober Governor 1, 1994, body.” 1138), April the Brown Act’s definition changes, as of 54952.2, repeals sections new law amends section 54952 Among things, other 54952.3, and 54952.5.
833 289]; Cal.3d 470 546 P.2d see also Irvine v. Cal.Rptr. [128 California 908].) The Emp. Com. 27 Cal.2d 578 P.2d legislation reflects that the current version of the ex- Legislature’s understanding in section 54952.3 exception excludes plicit less-than-a-quorum committees, hoc whether ad of less than a standing, solely from the members governing body open meeting Act. “would limited legislation duration ad hoc [have] exclude[d] committee from the but would definition includ- [have] committee, defined, as any standing governing body ed] irrespective (See (1991- its Counsel’s Bill composition.” Legis. Assem. No. 3476 Dig., Sess.).) Reg. Because retained the “in this legislation section” (§ 54952.3) and made no language amendment to general language would if make sense legislation only Legislature gave the words “in the same this section” that the Board attributes to meaning in the them current statute. If the intended had “in this section” Legislature as Freedom interpreted narrowly suggests, legislation duration, hoc, would have had result: this bizarre Limited ad committees would have been to the full *12 subject set procedural require- bodies, ments applicable including requirement holding “regular but meetings,” standing committees would have received the benefit of the relaxed described section procedural requirements 54952.3. This could not have been the intended effect of the clearly 1992 bill. considerations,
In view of these we find consistent it more with the legislative intent to construe contained in exception less-than-a-quorum section as an 54952.3 to the definition exception “legislative body,” thus one of several to the Brown Act’s exceptions open meeting require- ments,12rather an merely than as exception procedural the special require- ments of section This consistent with the interpretation 54952.3. Act’s newly amended an exception less-than-a-quorum advisory section 54952 codifies committees, “[A]dvisory solely committees in these composed words: of the members of the legislative body than quorum legislative body legislative which are are less bodies, except standing legislative irrespective of a body, composi- of their tion, subject continuing jurisdiction, meeting have a matter by schedule fixed charter, ordinance, resolution, legislative body legislative or formal action of a bodies for (§ (b), (1993-1994 of this purposes chapter.” subd. Sen. Bill No. amended Sess.), Stats., Reg. 1994.) Apr. eff. ch. This case does not the issue whether present Operations Committee would be a “legislative body” Accordingly, opinion under the new law. we no express the issue. 12Compare (legislative body may legal section hold sessions to confer with closed regarding litigation); pending (legislative may counsel hold closed “actions be taken purpose ensuring public agencies] openly [of definition, (§ 54950.) and that be conducted their deliberations openly.” By to an committee that consists exception applies only solely members of the that created it but not members to enough or, thus, constitute a to act as the legislative body. Accordingly, before action can be taken on such a committee’s recommendations the entire which includes the members of the commit- legislative body, tee, further, (§ 54952.) conduct must deliberations. way Act accommodates the needs of reasonably practical governmental organi- while zations still know. protecting public’s right Disposition
III. Since the Committee is of members of the solely Operations less than a numbering governing body 18, 1991, the committee’s on June was not governing body, of the Brown Act. open meeting requirements Accordingly, of the Court of is reversed. judgment Appeal Lucas, J., Arabian, J., Baxter, J., J., C. concurred. George, and Dissenting. MOSK, J., I have no with Concurring Although quarrel their the result reached I find that all has by majority, virtually reasoning been rendered enactment of the legislation moot quoted (Stats. 1138.) footnote 11 of the opinion. majority resolve, i.e., case to That answers the we took this legislation question *13 of a legislative whether committees of members composed solely the M. are themselves bodies” for of Ralph purposes Code, (Gov. Brown Act. et The legislation plainly seq.) § not, committees” therein declares unless as they they qualify “standing defined. an anachro- of this the has become light development majority opinion
nism; indeed, the statute discussed very 1993 legislation repeals Code, (Gov. 54952.3.) our at Because it is not length. responsi- majority statutes, review I would dismiss to offer bility advisory opinions repealed in as granted. this case improvidently General, sheriff, police, their Attorney attorney, chief of or to confer with district sessions buildings); security public
respective deputies, posing on matters a threat to the employee matters related to (legislative body may hold closed sessions to discuss compensation bargaining). and collective KENNARD, J. dissent. I
California’s Law1 Meeting bodies to notice Open requires legislative give of the time and their and to make such place meetings open accessible The stated law this is to assure that public. purpose can Californians about fully informed the legislative decisionmaking of elected and process appointed officials. Under majority opinion, however, a free to conduct the business entirely public’s session, its from private shielding decisionmaking process scrutiny by into press itself various committees” public, simply dividing “standing whose a does full membership comprise legislative body.2 The reaches result the Brown majority Act to by interpreting exempt such committees from with Act’s compliance The requirements. majority’s contorts interpretation statutory contravenes language of this state’s goal Law. Open Meeting
I 18, 1991, This case arose out June meeting the “Operations Committee” the Board of Directors of the Orange County Employees billion, Retirement Board System. $1.5 The administers of mon- consisting derived from the eys fund as county’s general well those contributed by The employees. “Operations Committee” is one of five standing to the full Board. The report membership Operations Committee (and of each of the committees) other standing consists of four of the nine Board members—one less than a person Board. 18, 1991, of the June purpose was to reevaluate the Board’s meeting
travel that had policy—a substantial after policy engendered controversy it was that some Board reported members had used funds tour Board Europe, assertedly connection with investments. A for the reporter Orange County Register, tried attend the daily newspaper, but was refused entry.
The next day, Freedom newspaper’s parent company, Newspapers, Inc., mandate, court petitioned for writ of access to superior seeking *14 future meetings of the Operations Committee. The court denied the superior law, in 1This is codified Code et seq., Government is also known as Act, the Ralph alternatively M. Brown will and hereafter be referred to as the Act” or “Brown the “Act.” course, in the up 2Of case of “committee” a quorum whose members make or more-than- a-quorum the membership governing body, of the full the committee not be a would all; at body. “committee” it be the governing would reversed, however, The Court of that the petition. concluding Appeal Oper- ations Committee was a whose “legislative body agency” meetings were the Brown Act to be and consequently required by “open public.” Code, (Gov. 54953.)3
This court the Board’s for review and now granted petition reverses of the Court of judgment Appeal.
IAs shall the Court of reached the correct result. explain, Appeal
II In the to the Brown the intent Legislature preamble expressed underlying the Act: finds and declares that the Legislature public “[T]he commissions, and and the boards councils other in this State public agencies aid in exist to the conduct of the business. It is the intent of the law people’s that their actions be taken and that their deliberations be conducted openly State do not their to the openly, people yield sovereignty [¶] which serve them. The do not agencies people, delegating authority, give their decide what servants for the to know right good people and what is not for them to know. The insist on good people remaining informed so that retain control over the instruments have they may they (§ 54950.) created.” intent, with all
Consistent this stated the Act legislative requires bodies of local “be and and meetings legislative agencies public” (§ 54953.) that all attend” The Act “be such persons permitted meetings. does, however, bodies to discuss in “closed session” legislative permit certain sensitive such as matters.4 topics, pending litigation personnel
The Act also bodies” to conduct “regular” meetings requires (§ 54954) and or continu- abide certain rules pertaining adjournment (§§ 54955.1). ance Additional meetings of each on items listed agenda regular meeting, acting only posting (§ 54954.2), week written notice one before agenda giving posted undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. 3Further meetings agency application closed when an discusses license permits 4The Act session (§ 54956.7), regarding negotiator with a criminal record or meets with its by someone (§ 54956.8), acceptable property and terms in a real transaction or price (§ 54956.9), joint agency in a pending litigation legal participates with counsel or discusses losses, liability liability compensation tort or workers’ pooling, about insurance (§ 54956.95), (§ 54957.6), negotiator employee wages or and benefits with its labor discusses 54957.8). (§ multijurisdicttonal drug law enforcement participates regarding *15 (§ 54954.1). each regular meeting anyone such notice The Act requesting does allow for but if a 24-hour special meetings, only they preceded by (§ 54956.) written notice.
The Act defines bodies” The “legislative term includes “the broadly. board, commission, directors or of a local body or agency, board, commission, board or commission thereof’ as well as commit- “any tee, or other officers of a local body serve in their official agency as members and which capacity is in whole or in supported funds part by (§ 54952.) such provided by . . . .” The term also agency applies “any board, commission, committee, or similar multimember which exer- body cises of a (§ of a local any authority legislative 54952.2), as body agency” commissions, boards, well commissions, as to “planning recreation library and other boards or permanent (§ 54952.5). commissions of a local agency”
The Committee” of the “Operations Board of Directors of the Orange Retirement County Employees as a System, “committee ... on which officers of a local serve in agency their official as members and capacity which is in whole or in supported funds part by provided by agency,” as a qualifies within “legislative body” meaning section thus it to the making Brown Act’s “open meeting” requirements. issue in this case is whether the Committee is Operations exempted by another, 54952.3, more specific, provision from holding meetings open public.
Section 54952.3 for less notice provides stringent for meet- commission, ings “any advisory committee or advisory body charter, ordinance, resolution, a local created agency, or similar by any formal action of a or member legislative body of a of a local section, commission, Under agency.” an advisory committee or is body for body” purposes open meeting requirements can, however,' Act. Such a legislative elect between body 24-hour giving written notice of its rule or providing by bylaw its meetings time; to be held at a regular other notice of regular meetings “[n]o (§ 54952.3.) required.” “
Section further that a as defined in provides ‘[legislative body’ this section does not include a committee of members of composed solely governing body which are less than a of such (Italics added.) It governing body.” is on this italicized that the phrase rests its majority conclusion that committees made up only members of the full but governing body “less than a of that quorum” *16 Thus, are from of the of the Brown exempt requirements Act. under the Committee majority’s interpretation, Operations was free to conduct its business in private.
I with the disagree of section majority’s interpretation “less- 54952.3’s view, this than-a-quorum” provision. my its terms express provision excludes those of the advisory solely members full composed of the local governing body agency from “relaxed” only notice require- 54952.3, ments of section thereby such bodies making advisory subject the more bodies rigid requirements govern legislative generally.
My is interpretation “less-than-a-quorum” provision compelled by 54952.3, of section plain language which must for starting point this (Adoption S. statutory interpretation. Kelsey Cal.4th 1216].) 823 P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d After that advisory commis specifying sions or committees are bodies” for of the Brown “legislative purposes next describes the less for stringent procedural requirements “ of such bodies. It then states that advisory body’ ‘[legislative as in this section does not include a committee solely defined members of the body the local which less than of governing agency body.” of such defined in governing By limiting language, “as section,” the carves out an from provision section 54952.3’s exception (and definition of thus from section’s less body” stringent notice for an committee of mem requirements) composed solely bers of the who local less than a governing body agency comprise of the local full agency’s membership.
Therefore, in this case the Committee of of Direc- the Board Operations tors of the Retirement an Orange Employees as County System, committee full of members of the composed solely (the Board), is “legislative body” agency purposes Rather, relaxed of section I notice as explained 54952.3. earlier, the Committee of “leg- meets section 54952’s definition Operations islative as a “committee which being ... officers body” in serve their official as and which agency members is capacity supported such, whole or in . . . funds .’’As part provided by Committee is to the full of the Brown Act. Most Operations force the committee conduct must its business important, public. that, here, an
To committee of individu- require comprised als who are members of the the committee reports governing body to conduct would further intent that Legislature’s stated public meetings *17 that both “actions” and be conducted and the openly,
“the business” people’s be to the and Even press public. “deliberations” of government the the cannot bind full Board by Committee itself though Operations (which a rule would or enacting “actions” such as a adopting proposal Board), and a vote of the full it can does “deliberate.” require majority and lengthy “Deliberation” defined as “the ... of thoughtful is process on all of an issue.” consideration” or as “formal discussion debate sides Diet, Indeed, 349.) to (American (1980) p. of the Heritage English Language follow consid- thoughtful lengthy best assure that decisions government issue, to all Act invites the public eration or debate of sides of an Brown witness that whole process. of affects standing
A committee’s reconsideration a that significant policy as the and confidence in its officials—such government trust public’s Yet, under the Board’s travel involves deliberation. here—necessarily policy 54952.3, of deliberation take section this can majority’s place interpretation when, And in case, outside private scrutiny session public. recommending change committee a standing policy makeup is one member short of a of the full and only just governing body, may one additional vote is needed to make the recommended there change, In that little on the the full Board. by further debate deliberation issue event, the its to witness the deliberative public right deprived processes Indeed, 54952.3, under any section government. majority’s reading to deliberative from the can its wishing keep processes do committees standing so controversial issues effectively by referring of one member less than a comprised quorum.
The section rests first on its conclu- majority’s interpretation 54952.3 from stringent that section the less sion construing exempt all less-than-a-quorum specified by procedural requirements committees of members composed solely hoc “result in even ad absurdity” making temporary, would Act’s applicable procedural committees Brown “generally of holding “regular” that set out in section 54954 requirements,” including ante, ad hoc 827.) at But to require temporary, meetings. (Maj. opn., p. far less time seems regular committee to conduct its at here, to use a local agency than as the does majority absurd to permit, deliberation on controversial to shield discussion and standing from public scrutiny.5 issues (which the General Attorney relies also opinions majority court) a series failed legislative not bind this and on admits do
majority legislation misguided, will be short-lived. New 5FortunateIy, majority’s opinion, though body” 1138), (Stats. Brown definition changes Act’s efforts to amend the Brown Act. But we need not turn to or vetoed unpassed to discern legislation the Legislature’s intent. The Legislature has made its intent in the plain to the preamble Brown which expressly states that to ensure that Californians can remain informed and “retain control” over their own government, legislative deliberations must be conducted “Vital” openly. functioning democratic is “an society informed citizenry.” (John Doe v. Agency John Doe Corp. 493 U.S. L.Ed.2d 471].) intent, S.Ct. Consistent with our I Legislature’s would affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment directing the Board allow members of *18 and the press to attend “its committee regular meetings,” includ- those of ing its Operations Committee. 1, 1994, April effective “standing” draws a distinction between “ad hoc” and committees, latter, specifies they continuing subject that the to the extent “have matter
jurisdiction,” (§ meeting” are covered the Brown “open requirements. Act’s subd. (b), (1993-1994 Sess.), as amended Reg. Sen. Bill No. 1140 eff. Stats. 1, 1994.) Apr.