Dennis Wolfe: "if you want to play political games with the security of your citizens then you...must be held severably and individually accountable"

ABSTRACT: At the Special City Council Meeting on April 3, 2008, during Appearances, Dennis Wolfe of “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government” commented on behalf of “local citizens” regarding Carmel-by-the-Sea's fire protection services. “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government” finds and exposes "situations where local governments violate the spirit of the Brown Act and our State’s Open Meeting Laws.” His comments are transcribed. REFERENCES, including summaries of Wolfe v. City of Fremont (144 C.A.4th 533), are presented.

At the Special City Council Meeting on April 3, 2008, during Appearances, Dennis Wolfe of “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government” made the following remarks:

“My name is Dennis Wolfe. I live in Fremont...and I have a state-wide Political Action Committee “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government.” We find and expose situations where local governments violate the spirit of the Brown Act and our State’s Open Meeting Laws. The clerk has material for you regarding my monumental recent state-wide precedent-setting decision regarding the Brown Act upheld in the State Supreme Court last year.”

“Right now, I would like to focus on the matter at hand regarding the fire safety. At the request of local citizens, I have been reviewing your actions, or should I say lack of action, regarding the delivery of adequate fire protection services for Carmel. It’s an apparent sleight-of-hand that seriously impacts the safety of all who live or do business here. And unfortunately, for you, as you are hearing from at least two people here, and probably hear from more voters are becoming very aware, that something is not right with respect to what you are doing. Carmel does not have adequate fire protection services and the responsibility for that rests squarely on your shoulders. Are you afraid to tell the citizens right before reelection that the cost of protecting the city has gone up and that could mean higher taxes? Well, no worries, I just did it for you. No one minds paying more if they’re receiving value for their dollars. Hidden agendas have unintended consequences, by continuing to run away from the reason you were elected and that is, one of those reasons is to ensure Carmel has adequate fire services. I guarantee that casualty insurance carriers are going to find out about it. I know. I’m a licensed casualty broker and have been in this business 32 years. They are going to seize upon your stall tactics and instantly recognize the real increase of the risk created by you. They’re either going to redline Carmel, their going to raise premiums so high that property owners are going to scream bloody murder or they’re simply going to cancel coverage. Three options. And that’s going to cost citizens a lot more than a justifiable tax increase if you need one. So one day if Carmel were to go up like a chimney because of inadequate fire protection services, you are going to bare a large part of the blame. How will you respond to the citizens in the days after a fire like the disaster in neighboring Pebble Beach? Did you know how close Carmel came to being wiped out back then? I do. I guarantee the Fire Department here knows. Ignore the risk and any sharp attorney is going to take you to court over the perceived liability that you bare. Suddenly, personal political agendas will not seem worth the prize on that day. Therefore, I urge all Carmel citizens to put you on written notice through their lawyers, if you want to play political games with the security of your citizens, then you should and must be held severably and individually accountable, you cannot operate with impunity, there is a prize to pay for assuming risk.”

REFERENCES:
• City Council Members’ Reaching Consensus In Non-Public Discussions, Prior To Public Meeting, Violates Brown Act
Wolfe v. City of Fremont (2006 WL 3072602, Cal.App. 1 Dist., Oct. 31, 2006)

• Brown Act Forbids Private Consensus-Building by City Councils
A California appellate court ruled in 2006 that under California's local government open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, a city manager may not build a city council consensus on a matter of city business by meeting privately with each council member.
In Wolfe v. City of Fremont (144 C.A.4th 533), the court held that a city council cannot reach a "collective concurrence" through individual meetings with the city manager. In this case, a citizen contested Fremont's decision to change its policy concerning police responses to home invasion alarms. The citizen, Dennis Wolfe, contended that at a hearing a councilmember said the "council had been fully briefed on the (security alarm) proposal and had expressed their support." In overturning a trial court's dismissal of Wolfe's Brown Act lawsuit against the city, the appellate court said that this statement, if proven true, was evidence of a Brown Act violation. The city manager (or anyone else) may speak to every member of the council. But the court said a city council cannot lawfully reach a consensus about action to be taken through these private meetings because it denies the public meaningful access to the decision-making process, as required by the Brown Act.

• Court of Appeal Denies Rehearing of Its Decision that Resident Stated a Claim against City for Violation of the Brown Act's Requirement that City Council Meetings be Open and Public

On November 30, 2006, the Court of Appeal denied rehearing of its opinion entered in Wolfe v. City of Fremont. In Wolfe, the Court held that a City resident successfully stated a claim for violation of the sections of the Brown Act (California Government Code section 54950 et seq.) that prohibit the legislative body of a local agency from conducting nonpublic meetings.

Specifically, the Court held that the City Council of Fremont violated the Brown Act by privately discussing a new policy promulgated by the city's police department. The Court further held that the resident's allegations led directly to the inference that the council members had reached a consensus through nonpublic discussions that took place among them, thereby violating the Act.