Another San Jose open-meeting law whiff?
San Jose’s elected leaders have been accused of violating transparency laws — again. Landlords are crying foul after the City Council’s 9-2 vote last month to explore policies that would prohibit discrimination against renters using Section 8 federal housing vouchers. It was among a series of recent victories for Silicon Valley renters, including stronger eviction protections.
But property owners suspect San Jose’s elected officials privately lined up the votes beforehand. The Ralph M. Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, prohibits local elected officials from privately discussing policy proposals among a majority of council members before a public vote.
That means six of San Jose’s 11 City Council members cannot discuss city business outside of a public meeting, even if it’s in a series of private meetings. San Jose’s council has been accused of violating the law multiple times and must issue courtordered written disclosures.
Landlords note that the council on April 25 approved exploring an ordinance to “address source of income discrimination” based on a memo written by Vice Mayor Magdalena Carrasco and council members
Donald Rocha, Tam Nguyen, Raul Peralez and Sylvia Arenas.
But the issue had been discussed twice before with several additional council members. Mayor Sam Liccardo, Carrasco, Councilman Chappie Jones and former Councilwoman Margie Matthews had proposed the exact same policy in a May 6, 2015, memo.
And on Aug. 28, 2015, Liccardo, Carrasco, Jones,
Peralez and Rocha teamed up to suggest no action on the policy. All told, eight San Jose lawmakers — Liccardo, Carrasco, Rocha, Nguyen, Peralez, Jones, Arenas and Matthews — had discussed the policy over the last couple of years.
Joshua Howard, vice president of the California Apartment Association, said it’s “concerning” that eight San Jose elected officials had privately discussed the issue, though he acknowledged the final decision will return for public discussion at future council meetings.
“It sends a message to the community that decisions have already been made in advance of the public meeting on the item,” Howard said.
But City Attorney Rick Doyle said council members were within the law because the earlier proposals were different.
“I understand the concern, but in my view they were three different requests,” Doyle said. “The first one was a request to staff to add this to your work plan. The second was to defer it, and the third was ‘we want this.’ I look at it as three separate actions.”