> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # City attorneys advise disclosure for some boards, but not council - URL: https://www.smdp.com/city-attorneys-advise-disclosure-for-some-boards-but-not-council/ - Published: 2002-02-25T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T00:03:41.000Z - Author: Andrew Fixmer - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Disclosure could prevent lawsuits against city* When it comes to telling citizens about private meetings with public officials, the city council is held to a lower standard than other local legislative bodies. Though city attorneys have helped pave the way for two municipal bodies to enact strict disclosure policies, they say it’s not mandatory at the city council level. Both the Santa Monica Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board passed disclosure policies for their members based on legal research done by Deputy City Attorney Barry Rosenbaum. He said municipal bodies that sit in judgment must disclose any private knowledge they have about a development project. And since decisions made by the plan-ning commission and the ARB are often appealed to the city council — the highest municipal legislative body — some officials are asking if council members should have to make similar disclosures. However, City Attorney Marsha Moutrie said the difference between the two governing bodies — the council predominantly deals with policy matters while the planning commission mainly deals with land use issues — dictates different rules when it comes to disclosure. “The council is a different kind of body,” said Moutrie. “The relative percent of its quasi-judicial work is much smaller, members are elected not appointed, they deal with a much broader range of issues, and therefore the burden of staying proficiently informed on the matters they are called to vote on is much heavier.” The planning commission enacted its policy in 2000 and the ARB enacted its own last year. Rosenbaum advised the planning commission to enact a disclosure policy so the record reflects any reasoning not presented in a public meeting that members may use to base their decision upon. Specifically, Rosenbaum and Moutrie were worried about visits planning commissioners were making to construction sites. They felt applicants should be given a chance to respond to what planning commission members witnessed in the field. Yet, council members that would visit the same construction site wouldn’t have to tell the public what they saw, who they talked to or even that they went. “The point of this is that the applicant should know the basis of the decision the planning commission comes to,” said Rosenbaum. “So if there is information decision makers are relying on outside the record, the applicant needs to have a chance to respond to that topic.” But apparently that doesn’t apply to the city council. Rosenbaum said the same case law does not necessarily mean the city council needs to enact similar disclosure rules. “There are legal principals a litigant could rely on to reverse a ruling if there is information that was not disclosed in their public hearing,” Rosenbaum said. “The planning commission almost always is sitting as a quasi-judicial body. And that’s just not the case with the council.” Moutrie said even though more disclosure from council members may protect the city from future lawsuits, there is no state law that mandates elected officials disclose information they obtained in private during a public meeting. “Our office has advised in writing in the past that we believe disclosure of off-record contacts may help in insulating against due-process challenges, and of course we always provide advice on how to insulate decisions made by the council, boards and commissions from legal action,” said Moutrie. “However, providing the best possible insulation against decisions is only one consideration for the city council, which establishes its rules based on their own various considerations.” Councilwoman Pam O’Connor said voters put elected officials in office to use their discretion and — as long as deals are not made in private — disclosure should not be mandatory. “I do not discuss the merits of any development with anyone,” she said. “But I want to be able to listen to what people have to say. > “I do not discuss the merits of any development with anyone.” — — PAM O’CONNOR Santa Monica City Councilwoman “I have to go to these council meetings with an informed mind,” she added. “But I also have to go with an open mind too.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 25, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/022502.pdf?ref=smdp.com)