Inside the Debate Over Secret County Subcommittees

San Diego County officials are grappling with questions of transparency as supervisors increasingly meet behind closed doors in smaller subcommittees. These committees, typically composed of two elected supervisors, are discussing major reforms, potential tax measures, and responses to critical issues like federal funding cuts and the Tijuana River sewage crisis.

Are Subcommittees Exempt from Open Meeting Laws?

The county maintains that these subcommittees are advisory and temporary, therefore exempt from California’s open meeting law – the Brown Act. If subject to the Brown Act, the county would be required to publicly announce meetings, provide agendas, allow public comment, and distribute meeting minutes. However, some legal experts disagree.

Legal Concerns Raised

Attorney David Loy of the First Amendment Coalition argues there’s a strong case to be made that the subcommittees should be covered by the Brown Act. “I think there’s a strong argument that these committees are covered by the Brown Act and should be treated as such,” Loy stated. He believes the issues discussed often extend beyond short-term tasks, necessitating greater transparency.

Controversy Over Lobbying Contracts

The lack of transparency has already sparked concern among supervisors not involved in the subcommittees. Emails obtained through a public records request reveal a controversial bidding process for lobbyists – intended to negotiate changes to state law regarding county tax hikes – was cancelled in January after staff raised concerns.

Email Concerns

Darren Gretler, Chief of Staff for Supervisor Jim Desmond, expressed discomfort with the process in a December 30th email to Chief Administrative Officer Ebony Shelton. He noted the timing during the holiday season and the lack of opportunity for the full Board of Supervisors to weigh in, stating the hiring of a political consultant “seems to fly in the face of transparency.”

County Response and Proposed Changes

Following the exchange, County spokesperson Tammy Glenn announced that staff would summarize subcommittee actions quarterly and provide wrap-up memos upon committee closure. Items requiring resource allocation or policy changes will be brought before the full Board of Supervisors. However, Glenn could not confirm immediate notification of bidding processes or contract awards initiated by the subcommittees.

Creation of Subcommittees

Over the past year, the Board of Supervisors has created four ad-hoc subcommittees. These include committees focused on the Tijuana River Sewage Crisis (Lawson-Remer and Aguirre), Social Safety Net Services (Lawson-Remer and Montgomery Steppe), Fiscal Sustainability (Lawson-Remer and Montgomery Steppe), and Fiscal Transparency and Accountability (Anderson and Aguirre). The Fiscal Transparency and Accountability subcommittee is the only one currently committed to public meetings.

Ad-Hoc vs. Standing Committees

Legal guidance from the state Attorney General’s Office suggests ad-hoc committees should address specific tasks within a limited timeframe. Loy argues that the issues these subcommittees are tackling are ongoing and should be handled by standing committees subject to the Brown Act. He believes the current structure “presents significant Brown Act problems.”

Differing Legal Perspectives

Nicholas Ghirelli, an attorney representing government agencies, suggested subcommittees offer supervisors flexibility in addressing complex issues. He also pointed out the Brown Act doesn’t specify a timeframe for ad-hoc committees to transition to standing committees.

Commitment to Transparency

Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, who serves on the Tijuana River sewage and contract review committee, indicated a willingness to increase transparency. She stated she’s open to reviewing Supervisor Anderson’s ideas and “always supported open government and transparency.” Supervisor Anderson is advocating for a vote on a proposal to make all subcommittee meetings public.