1.02.002_Confidentiality of Closed SessionsPolicy #: 1.02.002
Type: City Council
Effective Date: 2001
Former Policy #: 405.30
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK*6750 Commerce Blvd. ♦Rohnert
Phone: 588-2226♦FAX: 588-2263*Web Site: www.rpcity.org
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK
Joseph D. Netter
City Clerk Use Unly.
Council Action: Unanimous Approval, as amended 10/23/01 AGENDA ITEM #15
- Vote: 5 - 0
Resolution No. 2001-22.9
10/24/01 ATTN• Ellen Beardsley, Office Assistant
RE: Resolution Stating the Policy of the City Council Relating to
Confidentiality of Closed Sessions
The City Council approved the above item at its meeting of October 23, 2001. The
resolution with original signatures is attached confirming authorization for you to
proceed with the appropriate follow-up & handling process, which includes
revisions by City Attorney Betsy Strauss as stipulated by Council at the
October 23rd meeting. Thank you.
For Joseph D. Netter, City Manager
By Judy Han ep ty City Clerk
cc: Betsy Strauss, City Attorney
FILE —City Policy Binder 405.30 & Councilmembers Policies & Procedures
FILE — Council Agenda Chron File
1H/eh-h-102301 Council Agenda Action
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-229
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE ROHNERT PARK
STATING THE POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL
RELATI.NG TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF CLOSED SESSIONS
WHEREAS, as a general rule the Ralph M. Brown Act ("Act") requires that the public's
business be conducted in sessions of the City Council that are open to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act provides for certain exceptions to this general rule
by allowing the City Council to meet in closed session for certain specific purposes; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of meeting in closed session is to maintain the confidentiality of
information received and matters discussed in those closed door meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt this resolution stating policy relating to the
confidentiality of closed session.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park as follows:
SECTION ONE. Confidential information received and matters discussed in closed
session shall not be disclosed outside of closed session unless authorized by a majority of
the members of the City Council by vote in open session.
SECTION TWO. Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information received and
matters discussed in closed session may violate the privacy rights of an individual whose
performance has been discussed in closed session; may compromise the position of the
City of Rohnert Park in pending litigation by giving an unfair advantage to the opposing
party in that litigation; or may fail to maximize the appropriate use of city resources by
providing information to a party with whom the City has or wishes to have a contractual
relationship.
SECTION THREE. If a member of the City Council makes an unauthorized disclosure
of confidential information received or discussed in closed session as determined by the
City Council on the basis of substantial credible evidence presented at a public meeting,
then the City Council, by the affirmative vote of four members of the City Council, may
either exclude that city council member from future closed sessions on the subject; or
bring an action to enjoin future unauthorized disclosures from closed session discussions.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 23`d
ATTEST:
, 2001 by the following vote:
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
i uuu
aty y Clerk M yor �—
FLORES: AYE REILLY: AYE SPTrRI VIDAK-MARTINEZ: AYE MACKENZIE: AYE
AYES: (5) NOES: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0)
A
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
6750 Commerce Blvd.
Rohnert Park, California 94928
MEMORANDUM
October 15, 2001
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Betsy Strauss
RE: , Confidentiality of Closed Sessions
CountT X Date
Miscellanam
Communications
C !o:
ta:
The purpose of this memo is to review the law relating to the disclosure of closed session
meetings. As you may be aware, the Brown Act does not provide guidance on whether or
not information received or discussed in closed session may be disclosed to the public. The
law remains unsettled in this area. Here is the guidance that is available:
• The Attorney General has routinely observed that "it would be improper for
information received during a closed session to be publicly disclosed without
authorization of the governing body as a whole."'
• Not only does the Brown Act authorize closed sessions, it specifies, that a minute book
containing a record of topics discussed and decisions made at a closed session is not a
public record and shall be kept confidential. The Attorney General reasons that these
confidentiality provisions would be rendered meaningless if an individual member could
publicly disclose the information s/he received in confidence.
• Members of city councils may not be compelled in a court proceeding to individually
disclose their personal recollections of closed sessions.' Disclosure of closed session
proceedings necessarily destroys the closed session confidentiality that is inherent in the
Brown Act. .
• The following sanctions have been used in response to violation of closed session
confidentiality: (1) barring the person disclosing information from future closed
' 51 Ops. Cal. Atty Gen. 201 (1968); 44 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 147 (1964); Open Meeting Laws (Cal. Atty. Gen.,
pamp. , 1989). While the opinions of the Attorney General are not binding on the court, they "may be
persuasive."
2 Kleitman v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App-4ffi 324, 334.
(707) 588-2214 1 bstrauss@rpcity.org
9
-2— October 16, 2001
sessions;' (2) obtaining an injunction against the person's public disclosure;4 and (3) filing
an accusation against the person for willful or corrupt misconduct in office.' It is not a
crime to disclosure information from closed session.
Allegations of disclosure of information from closed sessions have been made from time to
time in many cities throughout California. Cities attempting to respond to the allegations
are often frustrated by the Brown Act's failure to address the issue directly and concretely.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need additional information.
3 Hamilton v. Town of Los Gatos (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1050, 1054.
4 Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41.
5 People v. Tice (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 750.