Board accused of violating Brown Act in talks before censuring chairman

The Mendocino County district attorney launched an investigation Friday into allegations three county supervisors illegally plotted in secret before publicly rebuking their chairman.

District Attorney Norm Vroman declined to comment on the probe, requested by John Mayfield, a Ukiah businessman, former county supervisor and member of the conservative Employers Council of Mendocino County.

"I don't comment on cases that are under investigation," Vroman said.

The investigation stems from a controversial vote Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors to reprimand Chairman Mike Delbar. Board members voted 3-2 on a no-confidence resolution, but refused to disclose the reason for their mysterious censure.

Delbar's detractors said the three supervisors had grown weary of complaints from county employees and the public about his temper and pugnacious personality. But Delbar's supporters said the no-confidence vote was a thinly veiled political attack on the conservative board member.

Mayfield contends the board violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's open meeting law that requires local government to conduct business in public.

His complaint alleged three supervisors - David Colfax, Hal Wagenet and Kendall Smith - illegally discussed their vote among themselves before publicly reprimanding Delbar.

"That's a disaster to have that going on," Mayfield said.

But board members denied any violation and said the Brown Act prohibits them from disclosing the events that led to the no-confidence vote. The law allows board members to meet as a group behind closed doors to discuss personnel issues, lawsuits and real estate negotiations.

"There is no Brown Act violation," said Colfax, who placed the no-confidence measure on the board's agenda.

Colfax and his allies on the vote have said only that they've lost confidence in Delbar's ability to run board meetings and handle the board's administrative duties, and that his behavior could result in litigation against the county.

Delbar, serving a one-year term as chairman, worked with the clerk of the board as part of his duties. The clerk, Kristi Furman, resigned two weeks ago without a public explanation and has refused to comment on her departure.

However, Mayfield said Smith met with him four days before Tuesday's no-confidence vote and told him the board was considering censuring Delbar over his treatment of Furman.

Supervisors also were disturbed by an incident at a January board meeting, Mayfield said, citing the May 20 conversation with Smith. In that incident, Delbar refused to let a political rival speak at the meeting, Smith reportedly told Mayfield. The would-be speaker, Joe Wildman, had challenged Delbar in the past election.

That is just one of many cases in which Delbar was confrontational or rude while conducting county business, his detractors said.

Supporters don't deny Delbar has offended people.

"Delbar's no angel. I know that," Mayfield said.

But he doesn't believe his behavior warrants a public rebuke.

Delbar denied deliberately ignoring Wildman and being rude to others.

"I don't see myself that way at all," he said. "If someone is before the board and providing information that is not accurate, or is trying to manipulate the board, I'm going to question that. That shouldn't come across as mean-spirited or confrontational," Delbar said.

He said the no-confidence vote was purely political.

Colfax, Smith and Wagenet are considered liberal compared to Delbar, who is backed by business and agricultural interests.

The supervisors invited accusations of "political skulduggery" by voting on something without adequate explanation, said Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, a San Rafael group that defends the public's right to observe government proceedings.

"If you feel you literally can't tell anyone why you did it, you shouldn't do it," he said.

Scheer also believes the supervisors were unnecessarily vague. Supervisors could have said the vote stemmed from a personnel issue and described the circumstances in a way that did not reveal the county employee's identity, he said.

Instead, supervisors cited the several exceptions to the Brown Act .

Supervisors said they believe they can't say more without violating privacy rules.

"We're not allowed to," Wagenet said.

Acting County Counsel Frank Zotter said he'd told supervisors to disclose as little as possible to avoid discussing issues that should remain private or that could expose the county to litigation.

Wagenet said the board is very conscientious about following the Brown Act. It's a reason they aired concerns about Delbar's leadership in public with the no-confidence vote, he said.

The board had several discussions about Delbar's conduct as chairman before publicly revealing the problem at Tuesday's meeting, Wagenet said. The talks were legal because they took place in closed session and did not include how individual supervisors would vote, he said.

However, Zotter had advised them that continuing the closed-session discussions on Delbar's behavior could violate the state's open meeting law, Colfax said.

Wagenet said he believes those legal meetings are the source of Mayfield's suspicion that supervisors illegally discussed Delbar's reprimand. The closed-session discussions were an attempt to resolve the problems with Delbar without going public, he said.

"We all tried to find a solution," Wagenet said.

He said he's not worried constituents will think Tuesday's vote was a mere political maneuver. "We don't do anything lightly. We don't have the time," he said.

Mayfield disagrees. He said the vote will negatively affect the board's ability to function and, possibly, the members' re-election. "They will be reminded of this one. It won't go away," he said.

Despite the divisive vote, all the supervisors said they expect to conduct county business without animosity.

"It was put behind me on Tuesday," Delbar said.