Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. Board of Trustees

Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. Board of Trustees
(as of 26 March 2006)

Perry Walker
Chair

Fred O'Such
Vice Chair

Sarah Brown
Treasurer

Karen Kadushin
Secretary

Demi Briscoe

Katherine Bucquet

Steven Hillyard

Michael McMahan

Jim Price

Jack Globenfelt
Executive Director

Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. Producers Guild

In a 26 March 2006 thank you letter to attendees of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.'s "Premier Gala," SCC Board of Trustees Chair Perry Walker wrote:

"On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I hope that you will seriously consider becoming a member of Producers Guild.

It is our hope that the Producers Guild becomes a cohesive and active group in the near future, although we will try not to take up too much of your time. As you know, Producers Guild will enable us to "push the envelop" in our quest to attract more diverse and higher quality Events to Sunset Center.

Our next gathering will be on June 12th at the MPCC Beach House starting at 6 pm. A buffet supper will be served prior to formal presentations. At this session we will share with you our Business Strategy for Sunset Center for 2006/07, as well as a preview of the performances that have already been booked for next year. Our Executive Director, Jack Globenfelt, will discuss one or two "higher risk" ideas for the consideration of Producers Guild. In addition, this meeting will lay the groundwork for the future of the Guild.

Bring your good ideas with you and expect to have an enjoyable evening with Producer Guild Members that already have decided to join. In addition, we have invited a small group of prospective members."

A STARTLING JUXTAPOSITION

On Sunday, 26 March 2006, The Monterey County Herald reported that the City of Pacific Grove has scheduled a budget meeting Monday as part of their "desire to create a more open and transparent government." Jim Colangelo, Pacific Grove's City Manager, stated that "the real focus of the meeting will be to get public input;" after his presentation, citizens will "work in groups to develop ideas and present recommendations to city staff..."

The City of Pacific Grove, a city which was not the focus of the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, is hosting a "open 'hands-on' residents meeting" with the goal of a more open and transparent government, while Carmel-by-the-Sea, the focus of the Grand Jury, put the City's response to the Grand Jury Report on the Consent Calendar to discourage public comment.

CARMELITES 'SHOULD BE GRATEFUL"

A Refutation of THE HERALD'S VIEW: Incumbents best bet for Carmel
Saturday, March 25, 2006

Note: Bold type REFUTATION; Light Type The Herald's View

The Herald's View
Incumbents best bet for Carmel

"Carmel City Council has been faced with tough choices in recents years. What to do with Flanders Mansion and the coastal plan? How to manage Sunset Center? How to keep costs down without putting off too much maintenance?

The council hasn't been able to avoid controversy in the process, but that's a function of the city's outspoken population more that it's a reflection on the decisions...It needs council members willing to do their homework..."

REFUTATION:
The Herald's View thesis: the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council has generated "controversy," not because of their "decisions," but because of the city's "outspoken population." In reality, the City Council has generated controversy because of their decision-making processes and decisions. Examples abound, including:

1. Flanders Mansion Property
The City Council's decision to hire a consulting attorney to find that the Flanders Mansion property is not "parkland" in order to avoid a vote of the people. The City Council's decision to sell the National Register of Historic Places property, originally citing "1) generate funds for needed City capital improvements involving a number of municipal facilities and 2) divest the City of a property in need of significant funding for rehabilitation," evinces a disregard and disrespect for the 30 plus year history of the Flanders Mansion as a public trust. Just because the current City Council is unable and unwilling to find a public use for the Flanders Mansion should not preclude future more creative and cooperative City Councils from honoring their public trust responsibilities.

2. Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Now, 16 months after the California Coastal Commission's certification of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Local Coastal Program, citizens realize the extent of City Council Member's lack of knowledge of the LCP's contents. Case in Point: A Mills Act contract between the City and the Hutchings was on the City Council's December 2005 agenda. Yet, at the City Council meeting, the Mills Act contract item was continued indefinitely by the City Council, despite a staff recommendation for approval of the contract and the presence of Mr. Hutchings. Defending their continuance, the City Council stated that they needed a "workshop" prior to authorizing any Mills Act contracts. Yet, the Mills Act contract is an integral part of the historic element of the LCP. Did the City Council Members "do their homework" here? Case in Point: Faced with over 90 appeals by property owners of their residences/buildings on the Inventory of Historic Resources, City Council Member Rose was "surprised and shocked" that there are 300 buildings on the Inventory of Historic Resources. Again, the Inventory is an integral part of the LCP. Did City Councilman Rose do his "homework?"

3. Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC)
The Mayor's decision to facilitate the creation of SCC without ascertaining the existence of a public consensus has generated ill will towards the City. The City Council's decision to fund SCC at $762,000/year plus for 3-9 years without funding the Forest Theater, Scout House and Flanders Mansion evinces a solitary concern for the Sunset Center to the exclusion of other significant city assets.

4. Failure to Maintain and Upgrade City Assets
The City Council's failure to annually budget for the maintenance and improvements (including ADA compliance upgrades) of the Forest Theater, Scour House and Flanders Mansion, despite an annual budget of over $11 million and $7-8 million in reserve funds, is not an acceptable means of keeping "costs down without putting off too much maintenance."

The Herald's View:
"Carmel residents should be grateful to have a mayor like Sue McCloud who works long and hard to help manage the city."

REFUTATION:
The 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report on Open Government, which focused on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, stated as its seventh FINDING, "Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest." Mayor McCloud's "over-control" of the LCP certification process and SCC installation process, as examples, has led many to conclude that the Mayor should not work "long and hard to help manage the city." Rather, the city would be better managed by a competent City Administrator.

The Herald's View:
"Over the years, the council has been correctly criticized for being a bit secretive but McCloud, Rose and Hazdovac seem to be doing their best to solicit opinion and make the process more transparent."

REFUTATION:
Only a "bit?" The BACKGROUND section of the 2005 Grand Jury Final Report on Open Government stated that "a number of complaints were received from residents and former employees of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea." The FINDINGS section's first finding stated that "Interviews disclosed that a pattern of obstacles exist that make it difficult to schedule, discuss, document for the record, and gain appropriate resolution of topics or issues presented by the public." The City's response to the Grand Jury's FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS was a letter with numerous falsehoods, including the City's claim that there are forms and procedures for public inputs into City Council agendas at City Council meetings. There are not any forms for the public to request an item be placed on an agenda. Moreover, at the March 2006 City Council meeting, where the Grand Jury Report was on the Consent Calendar, City Council Members disparaged the three residents who voiced their concerns about the City's response to the Grand Jury Report. Is this behavior representative of "doing their best to solicit opinion and make the process more transparent?"

CONCLUSION:
With The Herald's View conclusion that "There is no reason for a change," The Herald is continuing its tradition of acting as a propaganda agent for the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea! The Herald's failure to practice the "elements of journalism," as enunciated by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book, "The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect," evinces a disrespect for citizens. Specifically, in The Herald's news reporting and editorial commentary on Carmel-by-the-Sea, reporters and editorial writers fail to honor the following essential elements of journalism; "journalism's first obligation is to the truth," "its first loyalty is to citizens," "its essence is a discipline of verification," "its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover," and "it must serve as an independent monitor of power." As a result Carmelites, as citizens, are not well-informed or well-served!

View From Beach Bluff Pathway, Scenic Rd.

FLANDERS ALERT

Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, et al City Council of the City of Carmel (N76728)

Writ of Mandate Hearing: June 22, 2006 (Thursday) 9:00 A.M.
Courtroom 14 Judge Robert O'Farrell (Monterey Courthouse, 2nd Floor)

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS

In Carmel-by-the-Sea, informed residents are forced to consider and/or pursue legal action against their city because of its "the ends justify the means" policy. Examples include:

1. The City Council's "end" of selling a National Register of Historic Places city asset has led Flanders Foundation to file a lawsuit against the City alleging failures to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Government Codes and Carmel Municipal Code.

2. The City Administrator's appeal of the Historic Resources Board's decision that the Scout House is a historic resource and his subsequent withdrawal citing the historic determination was premature; after 4 architectural historians and the Historic Resources Board independently concluded that the Scout House is a city historic resource. Still, City Administrator Guillen vowed to place his appeal on a future 2006 City Council agenda.

3. The Mayor's 10 June 2005 letter to 300 "historic resource" property owners informing them that these determinations would "be filed with the County Recorder" prompted many of them to consult attorneys about possible infringements of their private property rights.

4. The Historic Resources Board's decision to "temporarily remove" 45 historic resources from the Inventory of Historic Resources based on the erroneous analysis of Principal Planner Brian Roseth led many residents to recognize a pattern of corrupting the means for a pre-determined political end.

SPEECH UNBECOMING A PUBLIC SERVANT!

"The general plan --- some elements of that need work --- and it's the kind of thing that will need input from a lot of citizens rather than the usual suspects, " he said.

(Source: "Councilman Rose envisions a greater Peninsula role for Carmel," The Carmel Pine Cone, March 17, 2006.)

The "usual suspects." Councilman Rose's disparagement of citizens who inform themselves on the issues and offer substantive comments during public meetings is speech unbecoming a public servant. All Carmelites deserve far better representation!

WILL CCC DEMAND CITY LCP COMPLIANCE?

Question: Will the California Coastal Commission (CCC) demand that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea comply with the historic elements of the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP)?

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:

1. November 2004: Local Coastal Program certified.

2. 10 June 2005: Mayor Sue McCloud’s letter to Property Owners informing them that they own a “historic resource.” McCloud stated, “Like you, I too own a home in Carmel that was identified as historic; I consider it a source of pride.”

3. 21 September 2005: City conducted a workshop for homeowners regarding their “Historical Designation.”

4. Approximately 93 historic resources owners filed appeals to have their buildings removed from the Inventory of Historic Resources.

5. 23 January 2006: Upon the recommendation of Principal Planner Brian Roseth, the Historic Resources Board removed “all post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources pending completion of an update of the Historic Context Statement.” Ergo, 45 post-1940 buildings were "temporarily removed" from the Inventory of Historic Resources.


6. 2 February 2006: Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage filed an appeal of the Historic Resources Board decision, including $260.00 filing fee. Writing for the appellants, Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley stated that the Historic Resources Board’s decision violates the LCP, Carmel Municipal Code and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

7. Only after Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation, presented the City with a copy of the Carmel Municipal Code, Chapter 17.54.040 Filing Appeals, did the City place the appeal on the next regular City Council meeting agenda, 7 March 2006.

8. 7 March 2006: During the Public Hearing of the City Council meeting, the appeal was continued without setting a date for the appeal for the next regular City Council meeting or a specific future meeting date, as is customary procedure for city governments. Mayor McCloud cited the need to confer with the Coastal Commission staff as the reason for the continuance and stated that she did not know when the appeal would be heard because of uncertainty associated with the Coastal Commission staff’s schedule.

9. 9 March 2006: At the California Coastal Commission meeting in Monterey, Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation, addressed the Coastal Commission regarding a “Request of an Overview of Commission Staff of the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Plan for Carmel, Ca.” She stated that she felt that the “Carmel Planning Staff consistently violates the condition of the IP regarding Historic Resources. Our concerns are with the Inventory, the consistent refusal to include relevant evaluations of the Carmel Preservation Foundation on the Agendas of the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning Commission.” She then cited the violations. Lastly, she expressed her request that the Central Coast Staff review her concerns to ensure that “the excellent Implementation Plan can be practiced correctly.”

More on Rose, The Carmel Pine Cone, 03/27/2006

If elected, Rose said he would like to spend some of the next four years taking on the more "fun" aspects of city business that were set aside while the council grappled with serious undertakings such as the Local Coastal Program.

(Source: "Council Rose envisions a greater Peninsula role for Carmel," The Carmel Pine Cone, March 17, 2006.)

Yet, Councilman Rose was "surprised and even shocked that 300 structures had been initially characterized as historic." Mary Brownfield reported that Rose said some of the reports used to declare the structures significant "were so vague and bewilderingly undescriptive I found it hard to believe that if the designations were challenged any court would sustain them."

Question: If Councilman Rose and the other City Council Members were seriously grappling with the Local Coastal Program, then why is it that he is "surprised and even shocked" that 300 structures are on the Inventory of Historic Resources as part of the certified Local Coastal Program?

A COMPARISON WITH IMPLICATIONS

Being a greater team player to benefit the coast and rectifying several outstanding issues within the city's one square mile should be the council's priorities, according to Rose.

"It will be fun to prioritize that and start doing things that will have an immediate and positive reaction from most businesses and residents," such as redoing medians, parks and the Scenic Road pathway.

"We've done a good job working as a team, albeit with very different personalities, to better our priorities so we're no longer just insular Carmel but part of the larger environment," Rose said.

(Source: "Councilman Rose envisions a greater Peninsula role for Carmel," The Carmel Pine Cone, March 17, 2006.)

BACKGROUND:

Since the City Council approved "A Resolution Of Intention To Sell That Real Property Commonly Known As The Flanders Mansion" at a Special City Council meeting on 22 September 2005, the City has spent $17,625.00 for landscape services to New Image Landscape Co. Some portion of that expense has been expended on the Flanders Mansion Property.

At two City Council meetings, during the Appearances sections of the meetings, Melanie Billig, President of the Board of Directors of Flanders Foundation, has respectfully requested that the City respond to two letters she has sent to the City. Specifically, in her letters to the City, she has requested that a tarp be secured over the Flanders Mansion roof to protect the building from further weather related damage.

Questions: If priorities are of such importance to Councilman Gerard Rose, then shouldn't the protection of the Flanders Mansion edifice from weather related damage be more of a priority than cosmetic landscaping of the grounds? Wouldn't limited city funds be better spent on a TARP than on a LANDSCAPE SERVICE? And if the City Council cannot get these two items prioritized correctly, then what confidence should Carmelites have that Councilman Rose and the other City Council Members can prioritize other projects in the future any better?

SCOUT HOUSE INFORMATION

Scout House:
[This description of the Scout House is adapted in part from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Inventory Recordation Form (DPR 523) prepared by Kent Seavey in 2004.]

The Scout House is a two-story, wood frame building with a raised basement and a concrete foundation. Built in 1931, and renovated at least three times, the building is irregular in plan and is stylistically a loose vernacular derivative of the Craftsman idiom. It has a medium pitched gabled roof that is clad with composition shingles. The exterior walls are sheathed with horizontal wood siding and textured stucco. Carmel stone chimneys are located at east and west gable ends of the building. The chimney at the western end of the building has been encased in cement stucco. A two-story, wood-frame addition, built in 1941 on the east elevation, approximates the scale and massing of the rest of the building. Fenestration consists of a variety of aluminum sash windows that replaced the original steel-frame windows. The house is located at the northeast corner of Mission & 8th Streets on a lot that rises steeply from the street level. The Mission and 8th streets corner of the lot is defined by a Carmel stone retaining wall pierced by a set of open Carmel stone stairs that provides access to grounds and building. Mature oaks surround the property.

In 1910, Lord Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, visited the Monterey area to promote scouting in the region. Several members of the Boys Club of Carmel, including leader John Neikirk, joined Baden-Powell in a bivouac at the Presidio of Monterey and soon became official Boy Scouts. In 1925, with the sponsorship of Carmel American Legion Post #512, and the help of Douglas H. Greeley, Sr. and Fred Leidig, Carmel’s scouts received an official charter as Troop # 86, Boy Scouts of America. Dr. Amelia Gates donated the Scout House site to the troop so that they could erect a permanent meeting hall. With the assistance of Louis Levinson and F.L. Veatch and the support of the Carmel Pine Cone, Troop #86 succeeded in raising the necessary funds to construct the building. Designed by architect Allan C. Collins, the clubhouse was completed in 1931 by master-builder M.J. Murphy (Seavey 2001).

The Scout House appears to be eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its importance to the history of Carmel. Since its inception, the residents of Carmel built a strong community base by actively participating in civic, educational, and social activities. The building is a reflection of such civic activities, as the site and construction of the building was made possible through community philanthropic efforts to build a facility for Carmel’s local chapter of Boy Scouts of America. The building is considered significant for its association with the history of Carmel’s community character.

Source: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of Flanders Mansion Property, Prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., August 2005, pg. 106.

MARCIA GREEN'S PUBLIC SERVICE

In the hope that other Carmelites will be spared the traumatic experience of having a City-owned tree destroy your residence, Marcia Green has published a leaflet entitled, "IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU TOMORROW! (Or maybe today)." The leaflet's purpose is to assist Carmelites RECOGNIZE and REPORT TREE HAZARDS. Further, "if YOU don't REPORT TREE HAZARD conditions directly to the City, and a City-owned tree causes damage to you or your property, you may be told by the City that the City will not accept RESPONSIBILITY for your damage which resulted from their tree. You may be told that the City had NO PRIOR NOTICE."

For RECOGNIZING tree hazards, an International Society of Arboriculture Tree Hazard Checklist is reproduced; the Checklist is also available for purchase on their web site, www.treesaregood.com. The web site also includes information on "What Your Tree Needs and Why," "Before Tree Buying and Planting ," "Proper Tree Care Techniques," "Pruning Your Trees" and " Tree Hazards and Treatments."

For REPORTING tree hazards, write Mike Branson, City Forester, P.O. Box SS, Carmel, CA., 93921. (e-mail: mbranson@ci.carmel.ca.us & Fax: 831-624-2132 )

For information about the leaflet , e-mail treefriend@webtv.net.

"HELP KEEP OUR FOREST SAFE!"

IRREPLACEABLE FLANDERS MANSION

THINK OF EVERYTHING YOU WOULD MISS IF THIS NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY WAS EVER SOLD OUT OF THE PUBLIC TRUST!

IN SUPPORT OF THE SCOUT HOUSE

At the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Carmel-by-the-Sea resident Carol Hilburn stated:

"I noticed that in closed session you're going to be discussing property negotiations for the N.E. corner of Mission & 8th, which I guess is the Scout House. And I just want to say that I feel very privileged to have moved here prior to the Scout House being closed. And being able to enjoy that very special facility. And I hope that in your deliberations in closed session that you will take into consideration how very special this property is. What a fabulous venue it is. And that we should do everything for this community to save that property and not to sell it and not to allow it to be turned into another cookie-cutter development in downtown Carmel."

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has an annual budget exceeding $11 million and reserves exceeding $7 million (most cities have 10-15% of their annual budget in reserves). Ergo, it is shameful that the City Council has not annually budgeted for the maintenance, improvements and ADA compliance upgrades to the Scout House.

CONSISTENCY IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT?

For the National Register of Historic Places Sunset Community & Cultural Center, Mayor McCloud orchestrated the invention, in October 2003, of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC), a "not-for-profit California corporation." SCC, Inc. formally took over city management of the community-based Sunset Center on July 1, 2004.

Yet, Mayor McCloud has DENIED pleas of the CARMEL PRESERVATION FOUNDATION to rehabilitate the SCOUT HOUSE and the FLANDERS FOUNDATION to renovate and rehabilitate the FLANDERS MANSION for public use. Both Foundations have approached the City on numerous occasions with their business plans for funding, operating, etc. these historic city-owned assets. All to no avail!

A mayoral record of sound, consistent decision-making?

And Mayor McCloud expects to be reelected mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea on April 11, 2006. Only in Carmel-by-the-Sea!

(TAXPAYERS) LEGAL EXPENSES FOR N76728

TOTAL CITY MONTETARY AMOUNT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL
WILLIAM B. CONNERS
M76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:

$30,380.00 (March 2005-February 2006)
110014 2/28/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 3,780.00 01 61051 JAN '06 LEGAL SERVICES

109798 1/24/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,260.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES

109626 12/27/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,780.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS

109353 11/15/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $40.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

109165 10/11/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $7,220.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108976 9/13/2005 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $4,280.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108897 8/30/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,520.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108622 7/20/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,940.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108410 6/14/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,360.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108242 5/24/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,660.00 01 61051 0040 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

107869 3/22/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,540.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/ March 2005 – February 2006 Check Registers)

Citizen Denied Timely Hearing On Mills Act Contract

David and Debbie D. Hutchings are the owners of The Elizabeth Armstrong House, Lincoln Street, 3 NW of 9th, Carmel-by-the-Sea. The residence, on the City's Register of Historic Resources, is an English Arts and Crafts style residence designed by noted local architect C.J. Ryland and constructed in 1935 by Miles Bain.

Chronology of Events:

1. Kent Seavy completed a Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record; Building, Structure, and Object Record; and Continuation Sheet. April 9, 2002.

2. On 17 October 2005, the Historic Resources Board placed the residence on the City's Register of Historic Resources and recommended approval of a Mills Act Contract to the City Council.

3. On the City Council's Regular Meeting Agenda for 6 December 2005, XI. Orders of Council, C. Consideration of a Mills Act Contract for an Historic Residence.

In the Staff Report, Sean Conroy, Associate Planner, recommended to the City Council approval of the Mills Act Contract and adopt the Maintenance and Management Plan.

4. At the 6 December 2005 City Council meeting, Council Member Rose moved to continue Hutchings item, seconded by Council Member Hazdovac. David Hutchings then addressed the City Council regarding the continuance. He stated that he had cleared his schedule to come to the meeting and was only notified of the continuance that Monday, the day before the meeting. He expressed a concern about whether he or the City Council had the right to continue his agenda item. Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment. After a withdrawn motion, a substitute motion, a failed substitute motion, Council Member Cunningham moved to CONTINUE the item without a commitment to Mr. Hutchings that his item would be addressed at the next regular meeting of the City Council or at a specific meeting date in the future, as is customary procedure for local governments. The motion to continue carried with AYES, Bethel, Cunningham, Hazdovac & McCloud; NOES, Rose.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and Carmel Municipal Code section 17.32.100 Mills Act Historical Property Contracts contain provisions for Mills Act Contracts. During the City Council discussion at the 6 December 2005 meeting, the City Council agreed that they needed a workshop on the Mills Act prior to entering into an agreement with an applicant. A workshop? After the Mills Act Contract has been codified in the Local Coastal Program, after the item was placed on a City Council agenda, and after the Staff recommended approval of the contract with the Hutchings? Additionally, Council Member Cunningham pledged to Mr. Hutchings that he didn't think this process would extend past 6 months. December 2005 , January 2006, February 2006, March 2006, and still no Mills Act Contract agenda item in sight for the Hutchings.

Good Government?

A Grotesque Display of Public Service

Comments after viewing the tape of the City Council's Tuesday, 7 March 2006 City Council meeting on the pulled Consent Calendar item, "Review and approve the response to the 2005 Grand Jury Report and direct staff to submit the response no later than April 3, 2006."

MYTHS PERPETRATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/CITY ATTORNEY

1. The focus of the 2005 Grand Jury Report on Open Government WAS NOT Carmel-by-the-Sea. (McCloud, Rose).

Rebuttal: In the BACKGROUND section of the Grand Jury Report, the Report states "A number of complaints were received from residents and former employees of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea...Procedures for all cities were reviewed, but the focus was on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea." Ergo, all of the complaints were from individuals associated with Carmel-by-the-Sea, NOT Marina, Seaside, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Greenfield, King City, etc.

2. Open government is televised meetings and agendas at the Post Office. (McCloud)

Rebuttal: If McCloud, after 30 plus years as a government bureaucrat in the CIA, believes that open government is televised meetings and agendas at the Post Office, then she obviously does not have the intellectual acumen to recognize the ideal of public service, let alone the ability to practice its attendant principles.

3. Individuals who spoke during the public hearing had not read the Grand Jury Report. (Rose)

Rebuttal: If Rose's statement was true, then why is it that the three residents who addressed the City Council during the hearing display vastly more comprehension of the Grand Jury Report than anyone representing the City?

4. The Grand Jury Report should not be considered seriously because it was the product of lay people. (Rose)

Rebuttal: Then why did the City Council Members, City Attorney & City Administrator act so defensively? "The lady (City Council) doth protest too much, methinks."

5. The City already has implemented the Grand Jury's recommendations. (Freeman)

Rebuttal: If this statement was true, one would have to believe that all of the numerous individuals who submitted complaints to the Grand Jury are mentally disturbed.

6. We could always look for ways to improve, but we are already meeting or exceeding all of the legal requirements for open government. (Cunningham)

Rebuttal: And who again are the ones who didn't either read or understand the contents of the Grand Jury Report?

Finally, after the public hearing closed, the City Council Members, City Attorney and City Administrator FAILED to speak directly to the concerns and criticisms of the three residents who spoke. Overall, the City Council's disgraceful performance was an INSULT to the Grand Jury Members and the public!

CITY'S RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY

March 8, 2006
Grand Jury
County of Monterey
P.O. Box 414
Salinas, CA 93902

Dear Grand Jury Members:

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is in receipt of the 2005 Grand Jury Report. In a section of that report, entitled “Open Government”, the Grand Jury reviewed the “open and participative”procedures for all city governments within Monterey County. The Report concluded that the published procedures for each city “appear to be adequate but may be circumvented or arbitrarily executed in certain instances resulting in lack of open debate, delayed or inadequate follow-up and no resolution.”
The following is submitted by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in response to the above-referenced section of the 2005 Grand Jury Report:

Ralph M. Brown Act / Open Meeting Act: City councils, commissions and boards, as well as the elected and appointed bodies of the County of Monterey, all special districts within the County, and the State of California are required to follow the Ralph M. Brown Act, also known as the Open Meeting Act. The California State Legislature adopted the Brown Act in the early 1950s, and it remains the hallmark of open government today.

The Legislative intent, as set forth in California Government Code Section 54950, reads asfollows:

“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions betaken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”In applying the regulations of the Brown Act, the Act defines a “local agency” as a county, city, city and county, town, school district, municipal corporation, district, political subdivision, or any board, commission or agency thereof, or other local public agency.

The Act further defines a “legislative body” as: “the governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state orfederal statute; a commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whetherpermanent or temporary, decision making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance,resolution, or formal action of a legislative body; a board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs aprivate corporation or entity either created by the elected legislative body or that receivesfunds from a local agency and whose governing body membership includes a member ofthe legislative body appointed to that body by the legislative body of the local agency; the lessee of any hospital...where the lessee exercises any material authority of alegislative body of a local agency delegated to it by that legislative body whether the lessee is organized and operated by the local agency or by a delegated authority.”

California Government Code Sections 54950-54962 proceed to set forth guidelines for allmeetings of local agency legislative bodies, which includes the notice and posting of agendas. Section 54954.2 reads in pertinent part as follows:

“(a) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the Legislative body...shall postan agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transactedor discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A briefgeneral description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. The agenda shallspecify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location thatis freely accessible to members of the public.
No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on theposted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respondto statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights... In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification,make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to the rules of thelegislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factualinformation, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerningany matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda..”

All meetings of cities, including the County of Monterey, as well as all other special districtslocated within the County, apply the Ralph M. Brown Act to insure that the public has an opportunity to participate and to observe the public business being conducted.

With respect to a city council, a city council person is elected by the public; however, that individual only has one vote on matters coming before the city. The chief executive officer ofthe city is known as the City Manager or City Administrator. City council members, as a general rule, refer matters presented by the public during their respective agency’s public or oral comment period to the City Manager or City Administrator for response at a later time as the item most often is of a personal nature to the individual as opposed to the general public. The city council or any member of the city council may also request the item be placed on a future agenda consistent with California Government Code Section 54954.2 as set forth above.

California Government Code Sections 54954.3(a) and (b) read in pertinent part as follows:

“(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for membersof the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subjectmatter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on anyitem not appearing on the agenda....”

“(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations toensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including but not limited to,regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particularissues and for each individual speaker.”

As a general rule each public agency has a three-minute rule which can be extended at therequest of a member of the city council and approval by the city council.
City Council meetings are open to the public, and their tapes or film are retained for a minimum period of 30 days consistent with California Government Code Section 54953(b) which reads in pertinent part as follows:

“(b) Any tape or film record of an open and public meeting made for whateverpurpose by or at the direction of the local agency shall be subject to inspectionpursuant to the California Public Records Act..., but... may be erased or destroyed30 days after the taping or recording..”

Subsection (a) of the same code section insures that any person attending the meeting has the right to record the proceedings. Subsection (a) reads in pertinent part as follows:

“(a) Any person attending an open and public meeting of a legislative body of alocal agency shall have the right to record the proceedings with an audio or videotape recorder or a still or motion picture camera...”

The legislative bodies of each city or local agency are required to pay strict attention to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Individual concerns expressed at a city council meeting by members of the public are typically responded to by staff in a timely fashion as appropriate to the particulars of the item. There is no guarantee, however, that the solution can or will necessarily meet with the individual’s approval. Nonetheless, as noted by the Grand Jury, there are written procedures for both individuals and members of a city council or local agency to address items of concern on a city council or public agency agenda.

Mayors have only one vote on matters coming before the City Council, however, it is the duty and responsibility of the Mayor, generally in concert with the vice mayor, city manager or city administrator and the city clerk, to set the city or agency’s agenda. In that regard, itemsrequested for placement on an agenda by council members or members of the public should be considered when setting the agenda, but need not be immediately placed on an agenda and could be deferred. The purpose of doing the public’s business in public is to assure that decisions being made by an elected or appointed body are visible to the public. It is possible that any person may feel that his/her concern is important and should be addressed in a public meeting. The opportunity to express that interest/concern is provided during a public comment period. As previously noted, the item may be referred to staff for follow-up, it may be specifically placed on an agenda, or it may be deferred. At all times, the individual retains the right to continue to address the item during the public comment period of all meetings.

GRAND JURY FINDINGS: The Grand Jury has noted 7 Findings with respect to this study.The City is required to respond to the Findings to indicate agreement or disagreement.

Finding 1: Interviews disclosed that a pattern of obstacles exist that make it difficult to schedule, discuss, document for the record, and gain appropriate resolution of topics or issues presented by the public.

Response 1: The City cannot speak to the content of interviews since it did not participate in the interviews; however, the City does not agree with this finding. Anymember of the public may request an item be placed on a future agenda. City councilmembers, as a general rule, refer matters presented by the public during their respective agency’s public or oral comment period to the City Manager or City Administrator for response at a later time. The item may or may not be of personal interest to the individual as opposed to the general public. The city council or any member of the citycouncil may also request the item be placed on a future agenda consistent with California Government Code Section 54954.2. It is possible that a matter may be resolved prior to placement of an item on an agenda; thus the item would not be placed on an agenda. The possibility also exists that the matter may be deferred to a later date to allow time togather information or produce data, etc., or it may also be that a matter of importance toan individual is not of the same magnitude of importance to the general public and thebusiness of the city on behalf of the public, and the matter may be deferred. At all times,the individual retains the right to continue to address the item during the public commentperiod of all meetings.

Finding 2: All cities have a three-minute speaking limit at council meetings forindividuals to bring issues to the attention of city councils on items not on theagenda. In certain cases, this allotted time might not be adequate for the topic bythe public.

Response 2: The City agrees that there is a Public Comment period at Council meetingswhich is typically a 3-minute speaking period. This limit may be extended with a vote ofthe Council. In general, the time limit is sufficient to note the item and referral for follow-up/action, if any. As noted above, the opportunity always exists for a member ofthe public or council to request that an item be placed on a future agenda. Also aspreviously noted from California Government Code Section 54954.2, ...” No action ordiscussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights... In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a briefannouncement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to the rules of the legislativebody, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, requeststaff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda..”

Finding 3: It is unclear what happens to a public comment topic if follow-up isnecessary.

Response 3: The City cannot speak to the judgment of the statement; however, aspreviously noted, there is a procedure for items noted during Public Comments.California Government Code Section 54954.2 states, in part, “ .... a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to the rules of the legislative body, mayprovide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff toreport back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action todirect staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda..” As noted elsewhere in thisletter, any member of the public may request an item be placed on a future agenda. Citycouncil members, as a general rule, refer matters presented by the public during the irrespective agency’s public or oral comment period to the City Manager or City Administrator for response at a later time. The item may or may not be of personalinterest to the individual as opposed to the general public. The city council or anymember of the city council may also request the item be placed on a future agendaconsistent with California Government Code Section 54954.2. It is possible that a matter may be resolved prior to placement of an item on an agenda; thus the item would not beplaced on an agenda. The possibility also exists that the matter may be deferred to a later date to allow time to gather information or produce data, etc., or it may also be that amatter of importance to an individual is not of the same magnitude of importance to thegeneral public and the business of the city on behalf of the public, and the matter may bedeferred. At all times, the individual retains the right to continue to address the itemduring the public comment period of all meetings.

Finding 4: It is also unclear what happens to a public comment topic if follow-up is necessary.

Response 4: The City cannot speak to the judgment of the statement; however, as noted throughout this letter, City council members, as a general rule, refer matters presented bythe public during their respective agency’s public or oral comment period to the City Manager or City Administrator for response at a later time. Any member of the public, orthe city council or any member of the city council may request the item be placed on afuture agenda consistent with California Government Code Section 54954.2. The item may or may not be of personal interest to the individual as opposed to the general public.It is possible that a matter may be resolved prior to placement of an item on an agenda;thus the item would not be placed on an agenda. The possibility also exists that thematter may be deferred to a later date to allow time to gather information or produce data,etc., or it may also be that a matter of importance to an individual is not of the samemagnitude of importance to the general public and the business of the city on behalf ofthe public, and the matter may be deferred. At all times, the individual retains the right tocontinue to address the item during the public comment period of all meetings.

Finding 5: Cities do not record three-minute public comment topics in the recording secretary’s minutes. Other than a videotaped record (if taping occurs), theregenerally is no written public record of the topic or any commitment to follow-up bycity administrators.

Response 5: The City of Carmel generally agrees with the finding with respect to recording in the secretary’s minutes in this city. Please note that although an item may beof importance to an individual, it may or may not be of importance to the public within the context of the purpose of government doing the public’s business in public. At alltimes, however, an individual retains the right to address an item in public during thepublic comment period of all meetings. City council members, as a general rule, refermatters presented by the public during their respective agency’s public or oral commentperiod to the City Manager or City Administrator for response at a later time. Anymember of the public, or the city council or any member of the city council may requestthe item be placed on a future agenda consistent with California Government CodeSection 54954.2.

Finding 6: All cities have a published procedure and a form for the public to place items on city council agendas. It is understood that, in the interests of time andefficiency, city councils cannot immediately schedule every topic for discussion. Thesetting of agendas is critical in determining what and when issues are discussed.

Response 6: The City agrees with this Finding.

Finding 7: Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.

Response 7: The City generally agrees with this Finding; however, it is important to note that the purpose of public meetings is to do the business of the city and the public, in public. As referenced throughout this letter, not all items raised may require or necessitate the same level of importance and urgency when put in the context ofindividual interest and general public interest. Mayors have only one vote on matters coming before the City Council, however, it is the duty and responsibility of the Mayor, generally in concert with the vice mayor, city manager or city administrator and the cityclerk, to set the city or agency’s agenda. In that regard, items requested for placement on an agenda by council members or members of the public should be considered when setting the agenda, but need not be immediately placed on an agenda and could be deferred. The purpose of doing the public’s business in public is to assure that decisions being made by an elected or appointed body are visible to the public. It is possible thatany person may feel that his/her concern is important and should be addressed in a public meeting. The opportunity to express that interest/concern is provided during a publiccomment period. As previously noted, the item may be referred to staff for follow-up, it may be specifically placed on an agenda, or it may be deferred. At all times, the individual retains the right to continue to address the item during the public commentperiod of all meetings.

GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS: The Grand Jury has made 5 Recommendations with respect to its study. The City is required to respond to the Recommendations to indicate whether the Recommendation has been implemented, has not been implemented, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented.

Recommendation 1: The public should be allowed to register topics and have themincluded on council agendas for discussion in the Public Comment period. Thepresentation of these topics should still be limited to reasonable times limits set bythe cities.

Response 1: The Recommendation is generally implemented. The public at all times retains the right to address any item of interest/concern during the Public Comment period of meetings of a legislative body. To the extent that the public wishes to addresstheir item(s) during the Public Comment period, the topic(s) is/are included in the sessionof the legislative body. Separate advance listing of an item of interest on the agendaduring Public Comment is not considered feasible and warranted. As previously noted inthis letter, the purpose of doing the public’s business in public is to assure that decisions being made by an elected or appointed body are visible to the public. It is possible thatany person may feel that his/her concern is important and should be addressed in a publicmeeting. The opportunity to express that interest/concern is provided during a publiccomment period. Also as previously noted, the item may be referred to staff for followup,it may be specifically placed on an agenda, or it may be deferred. At all times, the individual retains the right to continue to address the item during the public commentperiod of all meetings. Advance listing would be required prior to posting a meeting agenda, as required by law. Such advance listing could be considered to have a chilling affect on persons wishing to comment, and could become infeasible, overly cumbersome and time consuming for both the public and staff. California Government Code provides opportunity for any member of the public to present an item under Public Comment.Discussion of the item presented may or may not be needed or appropriate. The law is clear that items not listed on an agenda cannot be discussed or added without specific findings and procedure. Items may be received, referred for additional information orfollow-up from staff, or can at any time be requested to be placed on a future agenda bythe public or a council member.

Recommendation 2: Discussion topics should be recorded in council minutes so as to provide a written and time-stamped record of such discussion.

Response 2: The Recommendation is generally already implemented. Minutes of meetings by public agencies and districts are maintained. Minutes typically take the form of “action minutes” as compared to detailed discussion minutes. Action minutes assure recording of any action taken on an item that is noted on an agenda. Per the city’s existing policy, all audio and video meeting records are retained for a minimum of 10 years. As noted above, the California Public Records Act requires only a minimum 30-day retention period.

Recommendation 3: Within a reasonable time period, the topic should be assigned, if follow-up or resolution is required, to a city council person as a contact point torepresent the citizen’s interest and work with city staff to attain an appropriate resolution.

Response 3: The Recommendation is generally already implemented. Please refer to information provided earlier in this response letter regarding the ability and roles of council and staff members as well as action typically taken in referral of matters noted by the public. Council members set policy. A council member is one member of alegislative body and has no authority except as authorized by the body as a whole. The City Manager is the person charged with implementation of policy and the administration of the city. Follow-up to items raised by the public or council is done by staff on behalfof the Council as a whole. The purpose of doing the public’s business in public is to assure that decisions being made by an elected or appointed body are visible to the public. It is possible that any person may feel that his/her concern is important and shouldbe addressed in a public meeting. That same person or any other person may bedissatisfied or disappointed in an action or feel his/her concerns have not been resolvedon the matter of interest to that individual. This should not mean that the topic must berepeatedly brought to the council on an agenda nor repeatedly addressed in subsequent meetings. The opportunity to express that interest/concern is provided during a publiccomment period. As previously noted, the item may be referred to staff for follow-up, it may be specifically placed on an agenda, or it may be deferred. At all times, the individual retains the right to continue to address the item during the public comment period of all meetings.

Recommendation 4: A written public record of unresolved items, the status of the discussion topic, and responsible city council person should be provided.

Response 4: The Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warrantedand reasonable. Please refer to information previously provided in this response letterregarding council members and staff members and actions typically taken in referral ofmatters noted by the public. Please also refer to Response 3 above.

Recommendation 5: The procedures and forms to be used by the public to place items on city agendas should be made available at council meetings.

Response 5: This Recommendation is implemented. Please refer to information noted in this letter regarding the process used with respect to items noted by the public. We are confused as to the purpose of the Recommendation given the Grand Jury’s Finding # 6 which states: “All cities have a published procedure and a form for the public to placeitems on city council agendas...”

On behalf of the City Council and community of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, thank you for the time taken by the 2005 Grand Jury members to review and comment on procedures used by jurisdictions in Monterey County, including the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, with respect to open government.

Sincerely,


Sue McCloud, Mayor data/SF/Grand Jury/Grand Jury 2005 report.doc
c: The Honorable Stephen A. Sillman 2005 Presiding Judge of the Superior CourtCounty of Monterey240 Church Street, North Wing, Room 318Salinas, CA 93901

2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government

ABSTRACT: The 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report is uploaded. The OPEN GOVERNMENT section is reproduced.


Civil_Grand_Jury_2005_Final_Report
2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report


OPEN GOVERNMENT

SUMMARY
The Grand Jury investigated the procedures that city governments have in place to support openness in government and have focused on the actual experience the public has as these procedures are administered.

• Open government, in this context, means the ability of the public to submit items to their elected representatives to be agendized for discussion at future city council meetings and to have confidence these items will be responded to in a timely manner and with accountability as to follow-up and resolution.

Through interviews and observations, we concluded that the procedures where currently published appear to be adequate but may be circumvented or arbitrarily executed in certain instances resulting in lack of open debate, delayed or inadequate follow-up and no resolution.

The recommendations which follow generally go beyond current procedures and focus on changes or modifications that city governments can implement which would create an environment where topics or concerns can be brought forward for open discussion with a higher level of visibility and accountability: in effect, a more open government.

• Whether or not the public interest is being subverted through any covert process may be immaterial if the public has the perception their interests are not represented and outcomes are predetermined.

BACKGROUND

A number of complaints were received from residents and former employees of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. These complaints ranged from human resource issues resulting from the organizational downsizing that occurred in 2004 to issues of communications with the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea and an alleged inaccessibility of elected officials to participate in open debate and timely resolution of issues.

This triggered the impetus for an investigation of how all city governments in Monterey County support an open and participative process. Procedures for all cities were reviewed, but the focus was on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

• The objective was to improve the process as opposed to singling out any city for criticism.

INQUIRY PROCESS
The Grand Jury conducted 11 interviews. Complainants were interviewed to determine if a systemic or wide spread basis existed for such complaints. Additionally, Carmel-by-the-Sea citizens, public officials, city council members and employees were interviewed with the intent to gain a broader understanding of open government and how established procedures were administered.

Procedures for placing items on city council agendas and the process of tracking, responding to and resolving such items once the topic was presented were reviewed for several cities in Monterey County.

City council meetings on the Monterey Peninsula were attended with particular attention paid to how citizens are granted an audience to discuss topics of concern and how those topics were tracked and resolved.

FINDINGS
1. Interviews disclosed that a pattern of obstacles exist that make it difficult to schedule, discuss, document for the record, and gain appropriate resolution of topics or issues presented by the public.

2. All cities have a three-minute speaking limit at council meetings for individuals to bring issues to the attention of city councils on items not on the agenda. In certain cases, this allotted time might not be adequate for the topic by the public.

3. It is unclear what happens to a public comment topic if follow-up is necessary.

4. It is also unclear who determines if follow-up is justified, or if the topic might be placed on the agenda for future city council consideration.

5. Cities generally do not record three-minute public comment topics in the recording secretary’s minutes. Other than a videotaped record (if recording occurs), there generally is no written public record of the topic or any commitment to follow-up by city administrators.

6. All cities have a published procedure and a form for the public to place items on city council agendas. It is understood that, in the interests of time and efficiency, city councils cannot immediately schedule every topic for discussion. The setting of agendas is critical in determining what and when issues are discussed.

7. Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) is the law that requires elected officials to let the public speak. Section 54954 of the Act governs Regular Meetings and includes conditions for scheduling and public notice, but it does not include requirements for scheduling agenda items from the public.

The recommendations which follow generally go beyond current procedures, including the Brown Act, and focus on changes or modifications that city governments can implement which will create an environment where topics or concerns can be brought forward for open discussion with a higher level of visibility and accountability: in effect, a more open government.

1. The public should be allowed to register topics and have them included on council agendas for discussion in the Public Comment period. The presentation of these topics should still be limited to reasonable time limits set by the cities.

2. Discussion topics should be recorded in council minutes so as to provide a written and time-stamped record of such discussion.

3. Within a reasonable time period, the topic should be assigned, if follow-up or resolution is required, to a city council person as a contact point to represent the citizen’s interest and work with city staff to attain an appropriate resolution.

4. A written public record of unresolved items, the status of the discussion topic, and responsible city council person should be provided.

5. The procedures and forms to be used by the public to place items on city agendas should be made available at council meetings.

REQUESTED RESPONSES

FINDINGS
City Councils of Monterey County
Findings Nos. 1-7

RECOMMENDATIONS
City Councils of Monterey County
Recommendations 1-5

(Source: 2005 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT, OPEN GOVERNMENT, pgs. 26 - 28)