Poll: What Grade for Our Elected Officials on Transparency?

City councils, school boards and other local bodies now have the option of becoming more secretive — if they choose.

Last month, the California Legislature suspended the mandates that local jurisdictions post meeting agendas for the public 72 hours in advance and publicly disclose actions taken in closed session.

Officials in El Cerrito and Kensington said they plan to continue to abide by the disclosure requirements, which are part of the Brown Act, the state's open meeting law.

"I'm really committed to following those mandates," said El Cerrito City Clerk Cheryl Morse.

Kensington Police Chief Greg Harman, who serves also as general manager for the Kensington's de facto local government, the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, said he too plans to continue following the mandates, noting that the district's five-member board places a high priority on the open meeting requirements.

At the Stege Sanitary District, which provides wastewater service for El Cerrito, Kensington and the Richmond Annex and is governed by a five-member board, District Manager Rex Delizo said Stege will continue to provide the same notices as before. "We want to maintain our high standard of transparency," he said.

El Cerrito Patch has also asked the West Contra Costra Unified School District if plans to continue to abide by the mandates for school board meetings and will update this story when we receive an answer.

Marianne O'Malley, an analyst with the state Legislative Analyst's Office, said she's spoken with a number of local officials and city attorneys around the state and has not encountered a jurisdiction that plans to stop providing the notices.

The state Legislature's action follows a history of local-versus-state conflict over state "mandates," measures passed in Sacramento that add to local costs. A state Constitutional ban on unfunded state mandates has led to numerous claims for reimbursement filed with the state by local governments.

Claims for the Brown Act mandates have cost the state $100 million a year, according to one estimate. The billing has raised eyebrows in the state capital, not only because of the chronic budget shortfalls but also because, according to the watchdog group Californians Aware, local jurisdictions are seeking reimbursement for practices that had been in place long before the Constitutional ban on unfunded state mandates.

Before the recent state suspension of the mandates, included in the 2012-13 budget package, the state Legislature attempted to deal with the problem by suspending payment for the mandates, but that approach led to disagreement among various agencies whether the mandates were suspended, O'Malley said.

On Monday, a watchdog organization, San Diegans for Open Government, sued the state in San Diego County Superior Court, saying the suspension of the Brown Act mandates is unconstitutional.

The suspended mandates are only part of the 1953 Brown Act. The other parts requiring open meetings, public records and other open meeting standards remain in force. The Legislative Analyst's Office has a summary overview on its Web site, and the League of California Cities has a Brown Act primer on its Web site. 

Wth parts of the Brown Act under siege, we'd like to know how our readers would grade the transparency of local agencies serving El Cerrito and Kensington. You can enter a choice in the poll below, and we'd also welcome your thoughts in the comments section.