Officials: Transparency in Gilroy Government Here to Stay

The California state legislature's will have no impact on how the city of Gilroy does business, according to officials.

"In Gilroy, there will be absolutely no change," said Joe Kline, public information officer for the city, in response to whether the cessation of funding for mandates that require local governments to publically post meeting agendas and to report actions taken during closed-session meetings would change the way Gilroy entities disseminate information.

Kline explained Gilroy operates under its own Open Government Ordinance (OGO). Passed in 2008, the ordinance has "more stringent guidelines than even the Brown Act."

"The ordinance makes it easier for the public to get information," he said. "Even with the Freedom of Information Act, there is sometimes a lot of red tape and it takes a long time to get public information. The ordinance helps streamline the process and gets information out quicker."

It's the OGO that'll keep the city's going-ons transparent, Kline said, as well as the city's Open Government Commission, comprised of three councilmembers whose objective is to bolster the Brown Act and set forth Gilroy’s independent commitment to transparency.

As for reporting what actions are taken during council closed sessions, Kline said the mayor must publically state why the council needs to adjourn to a closed session before a vote approving the move is taken by councilmembers.

While Gilroy's 14 other city commissions and boards often don't go into closed session, Kline said they follow the same rules.

"If any reportable action items are taken, then those have to be publically reported," he said. He noted the personnel commission may have an exception to this rule as they deal with sensitive information.

According to Californians Aware, the state constitution was amended several years ago to provide reimbursement for whatever new burdens the state placed on local governments. If the state was unable or unwilling to reimburse local governments, a mandate would be switched off and no one, including the courts, could force local governments to sustain the program or service.

In the case of the Brown Act, the state has reportedly been reimbursing city and county governments, as well as school and special districts, for something many of them do as standard practice: posting meeting agendas. By some estimates, the state has been paying out $100 million to these entities in Brown Act mandate reimbursements.

City clerk Shawna Freels said the city filed reimbursement reports totaling just over $47,000 for fiscal year 2010-2011 for the council, commissions, boards and the South County Regional Waste Water Authority. However, just because the filings were made doesn't mean the city got the money.

"There's a lot of years we don't get reimbursements," Freels said. "This isn't anything new, to be quite honest. These aren't huge dollars and most cities don't often rely on the funding always coming through. Gilroy is no exception."

City finance director Christina Turner corroborated Freels' statements.

"We don't specifically budget for the state mandated claims because we are always uncertain how much we are going to get and when," she said. "[No reimbursements] isn't going to impact the city's budget. Any revenue we get is a good thing but not getting any isn't going to impact us at all."

Kline said the city will be closely watching how the suspension of mandate funding unfolds. He said the League of California Cities is actively investigating what the legislature's action means for local governments. 

Freels has her own questions too.

"What does it mean to suspend the Brown Act?" she asked. "Is it really just putting the money on hold or are they really suspending the Brown Act? Legally, what does it mean to us? In Gilroy, it won't change anything. It can't. But what does it mean elsewhere?"