Source: https://lozanosmith.wordpress.com/category/client-news-briefs/local-government/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:19:55+00:00

Document:
The California Legislature recently passed legislation, taking effect in 2018 and 2019, making it easier for individuals to change their gender identity on official documents, adding a new gender identity option to certain forms of identification and vital records, and requiring certain state and local agencies to change data collection practices so that gender identity is more accurately accounted for in demographic data.
Current law requires specific state departments, in the course of collecting certain demographic data, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity. AB 677 expands the list of state entities that must comply with these data collection requirements to include, among others, the California Department of Education (CDE). CDE must comply with the requirements as early as possible, but not later than July 1, 2019.
Additionally, AB 677 prohibits public schools administering a voluntary survey from removing any question pertaining to sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This prohibition became effective January 1, 2018. Under prior law, public schools were permitted to remove any question regarding sexual orientation and/or gender identity from voluntary surveys.
SB 179, also known as the Gender Recognition Act, was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown and went into full effect on January 1, 2019. (See 2018 CNB No. 13.) Now, for the first time in state history, California legally recognizes a third gender option for individuals who do not identify as either male or female. Specifically, California residents may choose from three equally recognized gender options – female, male, or nonbinary – on birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and other state-issued identification cards.
Additionally, the law eliminates previous barriers for individuals wanting to change their gender marker and name on these identifying documents. Under prior law, an individual was required to obtain a physician’s declaration confirming that the individual had undergone clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition in order to obtain a new birth certificate or to petition for a court order confirming the individual’s name and gender identity. With the passage of the Gender Recognition Act, a physician’s declaration is no longer required. Instead, individuals seeking a new birth certificate or court order confirming their name and gender identity may submit an affidavit attesting, under penalty of perjury, that the request for a change of gender is to conform to their gender identity and not for any fraudulent purpose. Minors may also petition the court for an order confirming gender identity with the support of a parent or legal guardian.
The law does not affect documents issued by other states or the federal government, such as Social Security cards, passports, and documents issued by US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
School districts, community colleges, and other public agencies will need to review and potentially revise forms, documents, and policies to ensure compliance with the Gender Recognition Act.
For additional information regarding AB 677 and SB 176 or to discuss student rights and gender issues generally, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also subscribe to our podcast, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn or download our mobile app.
In 2017, basketball Hall-of-Famer Shaquille O’Neil was sworn in as a deputy sheriff of Henry County, Georgia. The momentous occasion concluded with a moment levity at the end of the swearing-in ceremony when Mr. O’Neil announced his candidacy for County Sheriff in 2020. His wit was fueled by the tacit understanding that county sheriff is a position requiring the qualification of sufficient prior law enforcement experience. World-class basketball skills, although highly important, are woefully insufficient to inform the leadership of a county’s most powerful elected official. Needless to say, Shaq’s announcement was not taken seriously. The ceremony was, for the most part, a publicity stunt. However, the case ofBruce Boyer v. Ventura County (2019) was not.
On February 22, 2018, Mr. Bruce Boyer, a citizen of Ventura County, who had no prior law enforcement experience, submitted his application to be placed on the ballot for county sheriff. Unlike Shaq, Mr. Boyer was serious. As is required by law, upon review of Mr. Boyer’s application, the County Clerk requested documentation of his qualifications for the office of county sheriff.
Importantly, this case illustrates the role of a county and city clerk as a critical gatekeeper charged with the fundamental and important duty to review documents for statutory compliance. In many cases, a vigilant clerk can avert serious and costly problems. In other cases, a seemingly benign mistake can metastasize into a constitutional crisis. The case of Mr. Boyer is an ode to vigilant clerks.
Mr. Boyer, having neither sufficient documents nor sufficient qualifications, took the matter to court where he argued the qualifications requirement was unconstitutional and the Clerk’s refusal to place his name on the ballot denied citizens of their First Amendment right to vote for elected officials of their own choosing. The trial court disagreed with Mr. Boyer and he appealed the case to the California Court of Appeal, where he made the same arguments a second time.
Four years of prior full-time law enforcement experience and possession of a high school diploma or equivalent.
To support his case, Mr. Boyer argued a prior appellate case ruling unconstitutional Legislative predeterminations for Superior Court judge candidate qualifications similarly applied to, and rendered unconstitutional, the Legislative statute establishing the minimum qualifications for county sheriff. In rejecting Mr. Boyer’s argument, the Court of Appeal held the California Constitution expressly directs the state Legislature to provide for the election of a sheriff for each county, which means the Legislature can determine the qualifications for that office. No such delegation of constitutional authority existed for Superior Court judge. Therefore, the precedent Mr. Boyer relied upon did not apply for his situation.
Mr. Boyer then argued the minimum qualifications requirement violated the First Amendment in that it restricted the pool of sheriff candidates to law enforcement personnel only, thereby excluding civilian viewpoints from being heard. Mr. Boyer went even further to argue “candidacy for public office is a fundamental constitutional right.” The Court of Appeal relied on well-settled United States Supreme Court precedent to reject that argument. Candidacy for public office is not a fundamental constitutional right.
California Court of Appeal precedent also informed the court’s opinion. In 2003, a staunch gun rights advocate with no prior law enforcement experience attempted to run for Sheriff of Santa Clara County on the promise that he would approve the majority of concealed weapons permit applications. There, the plaintiff argued his First Amendment rights were violated because the qualifications requirement impaired access to the ballot. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. The court maintained this position again in Mr. Boyer’s case.
Perhaps Shaquille O’Neal will have better luck in 2020.
For more information on Bruce Boyer v. Ventura County, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also subscribe to our podcast, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn or download our mobile app.
A California appellate court has focused on the distinction between a regular meeting and a special meeting of the local legislative body when considering an exception to public comment under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act). In Preven v. City of Los Angeles (Preven), the Second District Court of Appeal found that the City of Los Angeles had improperly relied on the Brown Act’s “committee exception” to stop public comment during a special meeting regarding a topic that had properly been addressed by a committee composed of City Council members.
The Brown Act requires that public agencies provide the public with an opportunity for participation in the legislative process. At a regular meeting, the public has the opportunity to comment on not only agenda items, but also any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the public agency. During a special meeting, on the other hand, the governing body may limit public comment to only the items described on the agenda.
However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee’s consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body.
Preven specifically focused on whether the exception applies to special meetings as well as regular meetings. The appellant in Preven filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles after the City, citing the “committee exception,” had denied appellant the opportunity to comment at a special city council meeting because he had already spoken at a regular meeting of the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee the night before. The trial court ruled that the committee exception applied to both special meetings and regular meetings. The trial court reasoned that appellant had been afforded the opportunity to discuss the agenda item at the committee meeting the night before, and therefore could be barred from comment at the special meeting addressing the same agenda item.
On appeal, the appellate court found the trial court’s holding in error. It held that, pursuant to the plain language of Government Code section 54954.3(a), the “committee exception” does not apply to special meetings at all. The public is entitled to comment at special meetings even where the agenda item was covered at a prior committee meeting.
In light of this decision, a public agency subject to the Brown Act must take care in denying public comment pursuant to the “committee exception.” This exception only applies to regular meetings, and only applies to items which were previously discussed by a committee made up of board or council members, where the public was allowed to address the committee on those same items. The purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation with local government decisions, and improperly denying public comment could produce an adverse result.
If you would like more information about the decision in Preven or have any questions relating to exceptions to the Brown Act generally, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also subscribe to our podcast, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn or download our mobile app.
In a recent decision, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) addressed the public hearing requirement an agency must satisfy before implementing its last, best, and final offer (LBFO), after completing applicable impasse procedures. In City of Yuba City (2018) PERB Dec. No. 2603-M, PERB upheld an administrative law judge decision dismissing an unfair practice charge brought against the City of Yuba City (City) by Public Employees Union Local 1 (Local 1) alleging violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).
Local 1 alleged that the City unlawfully failed to hold a public hearing before imposing a LBFO in violation of section 3505.7 of the MMBA. Government Code section 3505.7 provides that after completing any applicable impasse procedures, and no earlier than 10 days after the parties receive the factfinding report, the agency “may, after holding a public hearing regarding the impasse, implement its [LBFO]….” This case marks the first time PERB has considered violation of the public hearing requirement as a potential standalone violation of the MMBA.
Local 1’s allegations specifically charged that, by identifying the item on the City Council’s agenda as “Local 1 imposition,” rather than as a public hearing regarding the impasse, and by focusing on the need to impose terms rather than on the disputed issues, the City failed to follow the statutory procedures prescribed by the MMBA.
In rejecting this argument, PERB noted that the agenda and staff report described the parties’ bargaining history, and notified the public that the parties had reached impasse and exhausted impasse procedures. Additionally, the union admitted it had the opportunity to prepare for the Council meeting and had received the agenda and staff report. Further, the Mayor “opened up the public hearing” during the public portion of the meeting. Based upon these facts, PERB concluded that the City had satisfied section 3505.7’s requirement to conduct a public hearing regarding the impasse.
Local 1 also argued that the City did not intend to hold a public hearing regarding the impasse because (1) the “Local 1 imposition” item did not appear on the agenda where public hearings were required to be listed per the City’s local rules and (2) the City failed to provide adequate notice required under the Brown Act of a public hearing regarding the impasse. PERB also rejected this argument on the basis that the City had adequately informed the public that the City Council would be considering imposing the LBFO and the opportunity for public comment had been provided.
In other words, the fact the item was not described as a “public hearing” on the agenda at a particular location on the agenda did not establish a violation of section 3505.7’s public hearing requirement under the facts. Rather, PERB clarified that section 3505.7’s public hearing requirement is satisfied when the agency (1) provides adequate notice to the public that it intends to consider imposing terms and conditions on employees (the LBFO) and (2) allows public comment concerning the proposed imposition of the LBFO.
After completing impasse procedures and before imposing an LBFO, agencies should ensure that section 3505.7’s public hearing requirements are met. To reduce exposure to similar claims, the agenda should clearly describe the item as a “public hearing regarding impasse pursuant to Government Code section 3505.7,” or words to that effect. Local rules pertaining to agenda requirements (e.g. location of hearings on agenda and timely posting, etc.) should be followed. Please note the Educational Employment Relations Act does not appear to have a similar public hearing requirement.
The staff report should describe the parties’ bargaining history, impasse, and compliance with applicable impasse procedures.
The item should be considered and deliberated upon in open session during a regular meeting in which public comment is invited.
The government agencies should ensure the union is provided with sufficient time to prepare for the public hearing by ensuring the agenda is timely posted and all documents supporting the agenda item are timely provided to the union.
For more information about this decision or about labor law questions in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also subscribe to our podcast, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn or download our mobile app.
A recent California appellate court ruling has clarified the reach of the California Public Records Act (CPRA). InAnderson-Barker v. City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeal held that records in the possession of a third party contractor under a contract with the City of Los Angeles were not subject to the CPRA where the city had access to but did not actually possess or control the records.
The court further explained why this case does not reach the same result as the California Supreme Court’s decision inCity of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608. At issue in City of San Jose was a CPRA request for “all electronic information relating to public business, sent or received by [mayor and council members] using his or her private electronic devices” related to a city-involved real estate matter. The California Supreme Court ruled that such records were subject to the CPRA. (See 2017 Client News Brief No. 11.) The City of San Jose court, focusing on the definition of “public record,” held that a record does not lose its “public record” status simply because of its location on a public employee’s personal account. The Anderson-Barker court focused on a CPRA requirement distinct from the definition of “public record,” that the record must be in the possession or control of the agency, ultimately finding that the City of Los Angeles did not have possession or control of the record because the record was with a third party. The city had only access to the records, and the court concluded that access does not satisfy the requirement of possession or control. However, the court also explained that data actually extracted from the database by the governmental agency and used for a governmental purpose might be disclosable.
Anderson-Barker thus creates a distinction between documents in possession of an employee or official versus documents controlled by a third party contractor. The former will generally be subject to the CPRA, while the latter generally will not.
Under Anderson-Barker, members of the public may not have a right to access records in the possession of a third party contractor. An agency or its employees or officials must control, and not merely have access to records, in order for the records to be subject to mandatory production under the CPRA. Public agencies may wish to address the structure of document control through contractual arrangements with third party contractors, allowing the agency to decide who controls records for purposes of CPRA production.
If you have any questions about theAnderson-Barker v. City of Los Angeles decision or the California Public Records Act in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.
In Ricasa v. Office of Administrative Hearings, certified for publication on January 14, 2019, the California Court of Appeal attempted to harmonize an apparent dissonance between the Ralph M. Brown Act’s personnel exception, and the disciplinary procedures of the Education Code. The opinion constitutes the first time an appellate court has ruled on the Brown Act’s personnel exception in the context of community college districts, and the opinion’s implications reach to all public entities that discipline employees under the Education Code. Lozano Smith attorneys, including Mark Waterman (one of the authors of this news brief), successfully represented the community college on this appeal.
Appellant Arlie Ricasa (Ricasa) served as the Director of Student Development for the Southwestern Community College District (Southwestern), while at the same time serving as an elected board member of a separate, but closely tied, entity, the Sweetwater Union High School District (Sweetwater). Ricasa was implicated in the Sweetwater scandal, which received substantial media coverage, and had criminal charges filed against her for counts that included bribery and corruption. As a Sweetwater board member, Ricasa voted on million-dollar vendor contracts while also receiving gifts from the contractors, including dinners and a scholarship for her daughter. She did not disclose the gifts on her required Economic Interest Form 700, and ultimately pled guilty to violating the Political Reform Act. Her guilty plea admitted she accepted gifts and failed to disclose them, and that the gifts were provided with the intent to influence her vote on business awarded to the contractor.
After Southwestern demoted Ricasa in compliance with the Education Code, Ricasa exercised her right to appeal the demotion to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), but lost her appeal on the merits. Ricasa also filed petitions in trial court to challenge the demotion, including on the ground that Southwestern’s Board violated the Brown Act by meeting in closed session without first providing Ricasa 24-hour notice under Government Code section 54957. The Superior Court denied Ricasa’s petitions generally, but ruled that the Brown Act required the college to give her 24-hour notice of the Board’s closed session discussion. Both sides appealed, and the Court confirmed that the Brown Act must be interpreted consistently with the Education Code when determining whether 24-hour notice is required.
The Education Code governs discipline of community college district employees, which may occur under section 87732 for immoral or unprofessional conduct, or for conviction of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude. The Education Code imposes specific procedural requirements for such discipline, including the board’s receipt of recommendations from the district’s superintendent/president, the receipt and consideration of certain information, the preparation of charges, and notice to the employee of the right to appeal the discipline via a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge.
The Brown Act generally requires that board meetings be open to the public. Closed sessions may be conducted only if authorized by statute. The relevant statutory authorization, often referred to as the personnel exception, is found in Government Code section 54957. The personnel exception allows a board in closed session to “consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests an open public session.” [Emphasis added.] For the latter category of actions, the employee must be given 24-hour advance written notice of his or her right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session.
Disciplining employees without violating the Brown Act’s 24-hour notice rule involves complex, nuanced legal evaluations for which counsel should be consulted. The Ricasa opinion confirms that for educational agencies the Brown Act must be interpreted in light of the Education Code and that compliance with the mandatory Education Code disciplinary requirements does not necessarily transform a board’s closed session into a “hearing” requiring 24-hour notice. While the Court did not rule that Education Code compliance forecloses 24-hour notice in all Education Code disciplinary matters, it provided substantial clarification for how the Education Code and the Brown Act must be interpreted together so as not to “eviscerate” the personnel exception.
For additional information regarding the Ricasa opinion and how it may impact disciplinary matters in your district, please contact the author of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.
A California appellate court has ruled that lay public opinions on nontechnical issues concerning a project’s size and general appearance can provide substantial evidence of environmental impact, triggering the need to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA generally requires public agencies to identify potentially significant impacts of projects they carry out or approve, and mitigate those impacts where feasible. Unless a project is exempt from CEQA, the public agency must prepare one of three types of documents. A negative declaration (ND) can be prepared where there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and a mitigated negative declaration (MND) can be prepared where the project has potentially significant environmental effects, but these effects will be reduced to insignificance by mitigation measures. An EIR, however, is required whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a “fair argument” that the project may produce significant impacts or effects. An EIR generally involves more time and often more cost than an ND or MND.
too big and too boxy and would damage the look and feel of the town, and would therefore have significant and negative effects related to aesthetics. The County slightly modified the project and ultimately adopted the MND. In part, it found that the project complied with local zoning because the area was zoned for commercial retail, that the Project’s design, architectural treatments, and associated improvements substantially conform to the County’s Historic Design Guide and, that the Project would not substantially detract from the town’s historic commercial district.
The Society filed a lawsuit seeking to require the County to prepare an EIR. The trial court applied prior case law and found that the Society’s evidence supported a fair argument that the Project may have a significant aesthetic effect on the environment. Accordingly, the trial court issued a writ of mandate compelling the County to prepare an EIR.
Georgetown Preservation Society serves as a reminder of the impact public opinion may have on projects approved or carried out by public agencies, and that lead agencies should not disregard public opinion in non-technical areas like aesthetics. Previous court decisions have also considered lay opinions in other impact areas such as noise, traffic safety, and parking. Therefore, lead agencies should not solely rely on its industry experts when evaluating the environmental impacts of a project. If the community members’ opinions on these issues are not properly taken into consideration, project delays and increases costs can result.
If you have any questions about the appellate court’s decision in Georgetown Preservation Society and its impact on CEQA compliance, or about the CEQA in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.