Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
7-3-12commissionresponsetobrown

7-3-12commissionresponsetobrown

Ratings: (0)|Views: 226 |Likes:
Published by scprweb

More info:

Published by: scprweb on Jul 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/03/2012

pdf

text

original

 
OFFICERS
DON
KNABE
PRESIDENT
~
~~n~;
10HNATHAN
ILLIAMS
`
VICE
PRESIDENT
~~
JOHNSANDBROOK
INTERIM
GENERAL
MANAGER
&
SITE
OF
932
AND
984
~
~
CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER
OLYMPICS
THLETICS
COMPETITION
~~
~'"
OPENING&CLOSING
CEREMONIES
EX-OFFICIO
MEMBERS
,~
STATE
SENATOR
ROD
WRIGHT
SITE
OF
984
OLYMPICS
ASSEMBLY
MEMBER
BOXING
OMPETITION
MIKE
DAVIS
LOSANGELES
MEMORIAL
OLISEUM
COMMISSION
STATE
OF
ALIFORNIA
N!ILLIAM
CHADWICK
GLENN
SONNENBERG
FABIAN
R.
WESSON
ALTERNATE
COUNTY
QF
OS
ANGELES-
DON
KNABE-MARK
IDLEY-
THOMAS
ZEVYAROSCAVSKYMICHAEL
D.
ANTONOVICH
ALTERNATE
CITY
OF
OSANGELES
BERNARD
C.PARKS
BARRY
A.
ANDERS
JOHNATHAN
WILLIAMS
TOM
aBONGE
ALTERNATECOLISEUM:3911
.
FIGUEROA
ST.
(213)
47
-7111
SPORTSARENA:
3939
.
FIGUEROA
T.
(213)
47
-7111FAX:
(213)
48
-5828LOS
ANGELES,
ALIFORNIA
90037
FAX:(213)
46
-9346
July
3,
2012
Kelli
L.
Sager,
Esq.
Kelly
A.
viles,
Esq.
Davis
Wright
Tremaine
LLP
Law
ffices
of
elly
A.
viles
$65
South
Figueroa
Street
1502
oothill
Boulevard
Suite
2400
Suite
103
-140
Los
Angeles,
CA
0017
-2566
La
Verne,
CA
1750
Re:
June
4,
2012
etter
on
behalf
of
the
Los
Angeles
TimesJune
8,
2012
etter
on
behalf
of
alifornians
Aware
Dear
Ms.
Sagerand
Ms.
viles
As
Legal
Counsel
o
the
Los
Angeles
Memorial
Coliseum
Commission
(
Commission
"),
I
have
been
asked
to
respond
to
Ms.
ager's
letter
of
June
4, 2012,and
Ms.
viles'
letter
of
June
8,
2012,
o
the
Commission
requesting that
the
Commission,
pursuant
o
Government
Code
ection
54960.1,ure
a
iolation
of
the
Brown
Act
llegedto
have
ccurred
at
its
May
14,
2012
meeting,
at
which
meeting
the
Commission
voted
to
approve
an
amended
and
restated
lease
between
tself
and
the
University
of
California
(
"USC
").
For
he
reasons
set
orth
below,
corrective
action
is
not
warranted
because:
1)
the
Commission's
prior
closed
sessions
id
not
violate
the
Brown
Act;
and(2)
the
Commission's
approvalof
the
amended
and
restated
USC
ease
at
ts
May
14,
2012,
special
meeting
occurred
in
open
session,
at
an
open
and
public
meeting
n
compliance
with
the
Brown
Act.
Request
to
Cure
Ms.
Sager,
on
behalf
of
Los
Angeles
Times
Communications
I.LC (the
"LA
Times
"),
has
requested
that
the
Commission
cure the
alleged
violation
by
aking
the
following
actions:
HOA.897841.2
 
jury
3,
Zo12
Page
2
"(1)
rescinding
its
May
4t" vote;
(2)
releasing
all
minutes,
notes,
audio
or
videotapes,emails,communications,.
or other
materials
documenting
closed
door
discussions
related
to
the
USC
ease
that
are
not
explicitly
covered
by
a
statutory
exemption;
and
(3)
onducting
a
properly noticed
public
meeting,
with
public
discussion
and
a
public
vote,
on
the
USC
ease."
You
urther
request
that
the
Commission
acknowledge
that
t
violated
the
Brown
Act,
and
pledge
no#
to
violate
the
Brown
Act
n
a
similar
manner
n
the
future.
Ms.
viles,
on
behalf
of
Californians
Aware,
makes
imilar
demand.
Since
Californians
Aware's
demand
is
based
upon
Ms.
ager's
letter,
we
ill
primarily
address
your
issues
by
reference
to
Ms.
ager's
letter.
First,
we
ant
o
assure
you
that
the
Commission
takes
allegations
such
as
our
clients'
very
seriously
and
is
committed
to
complying
with
both
the
spirit
and
the
letter
ofthelaw.
Government
Code
section
54960.1
provides
that
the
district
attorney
or
any
interested
person
may
commence
an
action
by
mandamus
or
injunction
for
the
purpose
of
obtaining
a
udicial
determination
that
an
"action
taken"
by
a
legislative
body
n
violation
of
certain
specified
provisions
of the
Brown
Act
s
null
and
void.
As
a
prerequisite
to
commencing
suchan
action,
a
written
demand
to
cure
or
correct
the
action
alleged
to
have
been
taken
in
violation
of the
Brown
Act
must be
made
within
ninety
days
from
the date
the
action
was
aken.
Within
thirty
days
of the
demand,
he
legislative
bodymust
cure
or
correct
thechallenged
action
and
inform
the
demanding
party
in
writing
of
ts
actions orinform
the
demanding
party
of
ts
decision
not
to
cure
or
correct
the challenged
action.
An
action
taken"
s
defined
as a
collective
decision
made
by
a
majority
ofthe
members
of
a
legislative
body,
a
collective
commitment
r
promise
by
a
majority
ofthe
members
of
a
legislative
body
o
make a
positive
ornegative
decision,
or
an
actual
vote
by
a
majority
of the
members
of
a 
legislative
body
when
itting
as
a
body
or
entity,
upon
a
motion,
proposal,
resolution,
orderor
ordinance."
(Gov.
Code
§
4952.6.)
As
discussed
more
ully
below,
and
in
response
to
your
request
for
cure:
(1)
the
Commission
does
not
intendtorescind
its
May
14,
2012
pproval
of
the
amended
and
restated
USC
ease;
as
hat
vote
was
taken
in
full
compliance
with
the
Brown
Act,
n
open
session
at
a
properlynoticed
public
meeting,
after
public
comment
and
a
ull
discussion
by
the
Commission,no
corrective
action
is
necessary;
(2)
the
Commission
does
not
recordor
keep
minutes
of
ts
closedsessions,
and
will
not
release
materials
related
to
its
closedsessions,
which
t
contends,
were
appropriate
and
all
within
the
safe
harbor
provisions
of the
Brown
Act;
and
HOA.897841.2
 
July
3,
2012
Page
3
(3)
the
Commissionhas
already
conducted
a
properly noticed
public
meeting,
with public
discussion
and
a
public
vote
on
the
amended
and
restated
USC
ease,
-and
sees no
need
to
take
any
urther action.
Alleged
Closed
Session
Violations
Ms.
Sager's
letter
asserts
that
the
Commission
violated
Government
Code.
sections
54953
and
54962
by
meeting
in
closedsession
regarding
the
USC
ease
on
February
1,
2012,
February 10,
2012,
March
7,
2012,
pril
4,
2012, and
May
2,
2012.
Section
54953
provides
that
[a]II
meetings
of
the
legislative
body
of
a
local
agency
shall
be
open and
public,
and
all
persons
shall
be
permittedto
attend
any
meeting
ofthe
legislative
body
of
a
local
agency,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
this
chapter."
Section
54962
provides
that
"[e]xcept
as
expressly
authorized
by
thischapter.,
...
no
closedsession
may
e
held
by
any
legislative
body
of
any
local
agency."
Of
he
two
statutes
asserted
as
he
basis
for
the
Commission's
alleged
violation
of
the
Brown
Act,
only
a
violation
of
section
54953
may
e
subjectto
an
action
by
mandamus
r
injunction.
Section
54962
s
not
one
of
the
statutes
enumerated
in
Government
Code
section
54960.1(a),
and
therefore,
is
not
a
basis
for
this
demand
or
an
action
against
the
Commission.
The
Brown
Act
expressly
permits
a
legislative
body
of
a
Iocal
agency
to
meet
in
closedsession
"with
-its
negotiator
prior
to
the
purchase,
ale,
exchange,
r lease
of
real
property
by
or
for
the
local
agency
o
grant
authority
to
its
negotiator
regarding
the
price
and
terms
of
payment
or
thepurchase,
ale,
exchange,
r
lease."
(Gov.
Code
§
54596.8.)
Forpurposes
of
section
54596.8,
lease"
includes
renewal
or
renegotiation
of
a
lease.
Each.
f
the
Commission's
closed
sessions
regarding"
the
amended
and
restated
USC
ease
negotiations
were
properlynoticed
as
closed
sessions
under
section
54596.8
pursuant
o
thesafe
harbor
provisions
of
Government
Code
section
54954.4.
Further,
the
LA
Times'
ure
demand
references
alleged
violations
at
Commission
meetings
in
February,
2012
hat
are
outside
the
ninety
-day
noticeperiod required
under
section
54960.1(c)(1),
and
therefore,
those
closed
sessionsare
notsubject
to
challenge.
In
addition,
t
should
be
noted
that
no
closed
session
discussionregarding
the
amended
and
restated
USC
easeoccurred
at
the
February
1,
2012
Commission
meeting,
as
hat
meeting
was
discontinued
just
as
he
Commission
was
ntering
closed
session
due
o
a
lack
of posted
notice for
the
meeting.
As
soon
as
he
Commission
was
made
aware
of
the
notice defect,
t
discontinued
the
meeting
and
the
meeting
was
rescheduled
for
February 10,
2012.
The LA
Times
reporters
are
well
aware
of
this
fact,
as
hey
were
present
at
themeeting
and
brought
he
notice
defect
to
the
attention
ofthe
Commission.
It
is 
disappointingthat
the
LA
Times
s
trying
build
its
argument
against
the
Commission
on
assertions
of
compound
violations
based
upon
meetings
where
t
knows
hat
no
substantive
closedsessiondiscussions could
have
occurred.
Of
he
threeremainingclosed
sessions
at
issue,
the
amended
and
restated
USC
lease
negotiations
were
only
discussed
at
two.
The
March
7,
2012
losedsession
(we
note
that
the
March
7t"
meeting
is
within
the
ninety
-day
noticeperiodfor
°Ms.
ager's
HOA.897841.2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->