In Transparentgov Novato v. City of Novato, published April 10, 2019, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed an order denying a petition for writ of mandate and for declaratory relief against the defendant city. At a city council meeting, the councilmembers discussed putting discussion of a public works project on a future agenda (which the council rules permitted) and forming a subcommittee to study another project. The plaintiff sent the city a cease-and-desist letter alleging that the city council violated the Brown Act by discussing substantive portions of the project on which the subcommittee was formed without giving proper notice. The city responded in writing that in the future it would not establish subcommittees at a meeting without first placing the item on the posted agenda. It later passed a resolution barring members from orally requesting that an item be placed on a future agenda. The plaintiff then filed the action asking the court to declare that the discussion of the subjects violated the Brown Act, and seeking a writ petition directing the council to address only items properly on the posted agenda.
The appellate court ruled that the relief requested was moot. Under the statutes governing relief for violations of the Brown Act, the propriety of declaratory relief, and writ relief, relief is properly denied if the respondent has stated that it has ceased the challenged action and the evidence indicates it will not undertake the action in the future.
Comments