Grand Jury rules Commission violated Brown Act

The Grand Jury has determined that the Commission, in circulating a letter of endorsement for commissionmember Jerry Deal for City Council in the last election, was in clear violation of the Brown Act.

Chair of the Planning Commission, David Luzuriaga, wrote the letter endorsing Deal and went to each commissionmember individually and asked him/her to sign the letter.

The Grand Jury deemed this correspondence a "serial meeting." This means commissionmember meet in private to discuss matters concerning policy.

"I didn't feel I was conducting a serial meeting," Luzuriaga said. "I was under the impression that [for it to be a violation] it had to be an issue concerning the planning commission. I was endorsing someone for City Council, I didn't think that applied, but the Grand Jury decided otherwise."

Larry Anderson, the city attorney for Burlingame, said he feels the issue is a gray area. "It could be viewed as a violation [of the Brown Act] in some interpretations," Anderson said. "I tried to analyze how it could have been viewed as a violation by some people."

Luzuriaga said the county council is not convinced what transpired was a serial meeting violation. "I think there is a jurisdiction issue," Luzuriaga said. He feels that since his letter was concerning a seat on the City Council it was not a violation.

The letter Luzuriaga wrote was signed by all the commissionmember except Mike Coffey (who was on the Planning Commission at the time and was elected to City Council) and Jerry Deal - who the letter was concerning.

The Grand Jury, after conducting its investigation, has made several recommendations. It recommends that the Planning Commission put this item on the agenda and publicly acknowledge to the citizens of Burlingame that the action was a violation of the Brown Act.

According to Herman Christensen, Foreperson of the Grand Jury, the commission placed this item on an agenda previously but the item was never discussed.

The Grand Jury also recommends that the city attorney meet with the Planning Commission to discuss exactly what the Brown Act is and what constitutes a violation.

Anderson said he met with the commission in April, and they spent time asking and answering questions regarding the Brown Act. "We went through an analysis concerning different situations," Anderson said.

And finally the Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney review the case for possible prosecution.

Christensen said he did not know what the penalty would be if the commission was prosecuted and found guilty. "No one has ever been found guilty of this violation as far as I know," Christensen said. "It is on the books, but unfortunately it is not enforced vigorously."

Christensen said the Grand Jury asks that the Brown Act be followed.

"These are the rules of the game," he said. "Business of the government needs to be open to the public."

The Civil Grand Jury is a volunteer body which reviews government entities at a local level and makes recommendations of improvement.

Luzuriaga said he went to the Grand Jury about seven months ago to explain the situation and they said they were also investigating the Atherton and San Mateo City Council's for violation of the Brown Act. "I think it's ironic that those cases weren't brought up at the press meeting," Luzuriaga said. "What happened with those?"