REGIONAL REPORT ELECTED BODIES : Suspension of Open-Meeting Law Creates a Statewide Stir

SACRAMENTO â€”  Although a little-noticed provision of the state budget suspends an open-meeting law for city councils and other local elected bodies, many local elected officials say they will continue to post an agenda 72 hours before any meeting, stick to that agenda and allow public testimony.

Budget-writers suspended the open-meeting law for a year as a cost-saving measure. A recent study indicated that it would cost the state more than $2 million annually to reimburse local governments for the cost of complying with the law, although some critics contend it actually would cost much less.

Public interest groups and newspaper editorialists are furious about the move, saying it will allow local lawmakers to conduct shady, back-room dealings.

“We think it’s a disaster for open meetings at the local level,� said Ruth Holton, a lobbyist for Common Cause. “There are unscrupulous local agencies that will no doubt be delighted now to hold meetings without the public’s knowledge and without public comment.�

Officials in a number of Southern California cities said Monday they intend to follow the provisions of the now-suspended law. Many said they posted agendas and allowed public comment before it was required and will continue to do so even though it is no longer a mandate.

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, who called the Legislature’s action “a tragedy,� has introduced a resolution that would require the council to continue posting agendas and allowing public input. The council, which prompted the open-meeting law in the first place by passing a 10% pay raise for itself in 1985 without public notice, is scheduled to consider that measure today.

In San Diego County, John Sweeten, director of the Intergovernment and Public Affairs Office, said: “I can’t foresee any change at all. Our board’s policy has always been to fully disclose things.�

Huntington Beach Mayor Tom Mays agreed. “We’re pretty used to the current procedures,� he said. “As long as I’m mayor, we’ll continue to have public comments. It’s very important to have community input in local government and it’s important to have agenda postings.�

The open-meeting law was one of 19 state mandates--including a requirement that police officers provide assistance to stranded motorists and that judges consider victims’ statements when sentencing felons--that were suspended this year to achieve a claimed savings of $59 million.

James Apps, a budget analyst for the Department of Finance, said most of those requirements were “totally unnecessary� because local government would perform the functions even if the state didn’t pick up the tab.

Sen. Ralph C. Dills (D-Gardena) introduced legislation Monday to reinstate the law. Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly (D-Sacramento), author of the 1986 open-meeting law, said he would follow suit.

“I don’t think any public entities are going to abuse the law in the next year, but the potential is there,� Connelly said. “There is a history of public entities acting without public notice. In some instances it’s negligence, but in other instances it may have been intended.�

So far no state money has been paid out because of the open-meeting requirement and only one local agency--the Los Angeles City Council, which asked for $12,000 in 1987--has ever filed for reimbursement. Another local board, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, estimated it would cost $1.6 million over four years to pay for the posting of agendas and allowing public testimony.

Some critics challenge those numbers, however. “That’s just junk. It has no basis in fiscal reality. It’s not going to cost the state a dime to enforce this mandate,� said Connelly, adding that it is relatively inexpensive to type and post a two- or three-page agenda.

Times staff writers Shannon Sands and Greg Hernandez in Orange County, Jane Fritsch in Los Angeles, and Barry M. Horstman in San Diego contributed to this report.