As a footnote to the text quoted in the story, I should point out that the Brown Act probably does not prohibit nonpublic votes by a majority—in serial communications, for example—simply and solely to call a special meeting or place a particular item on the agenda, so long as the discussion does not include deliberation about proposed action at the special meeting or on the agenda item. In other words, there's a big difference between agreeing, "We need to talk about this" and "Here's what we should do about this."

Posted by Terry Francke | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 2:41 pm

Hey Scott - You're almost there when you look to the Permanent Rules of the Council (SDMC Sec. 22.0101.5) for guidance on the legality of Frye-DeMaio et al. memo. However, the rule you've cited 2.3.2 addresses how a single Councilmember can put something on the docket as a Special Order of Business. This subject memo, signed by four councilmembers, is addressed in rule 2.9.2 as follows: "The President shall place directly on the Council agenda, prior to assignment to any committee, any matter so requested in writing by four members of the Council. Such a matter shall be docketed for hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Council within thirty days thereafter. However, any matter which has been placed directly on the Council agenda without first having been heard by a committee of the City Council must be referred to the appropriate committee for a hearing."

Posted by Scott | reply to this comment
February 5, 2009 9:19 am

It sounds as if the meeting between the 2 white knights violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Brown Act. Since the City holds volunteer groups to the letter of the law, why not the council members ? Another example of the City taking care of its own. I hope that if the white knights were driven (in the case of Ms. Frye) or drove to their meeting they got their mileage allowances. By the way how does Ms. Frye justify having her staff members drive her around ? Do they receive their own gas allowances and hers ? Just asking.

Posted by smournian | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 2:59 pm

Much ado over nothing. Perhaps instead of worrying about what can get on a Council agenda, they should be concentrating on fiscal issues and how to avoid denying public services they were elected to maintain!

Posted by San Diego WatchDog | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 5:00 pm

Having witnessed the futility of attempting to participate in our government in any meaningful way under the gavel of Peters, I commend Frye and her colleagues in their efforts to improve the situation. Right now, citizens have practically NO voice in how our city works. These common sense proposals need to be heard and voted up or down. Then we can all know who votes against open government. The current system only benefits those who are paid to attend meetings, and the awful results are damning enough to warrant changing how San Diego conducts the public's business.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
February 5, 2009 7:01 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.