SALINAS >> A committee called the City Selection Committee charged with appointing mayors to different boards and commissions in Monterey County has been accused of violating California’s open-meeting law.

The law, called the Ralph M. Brown Act, was passed by the state Legislature in 2003. It governs the public transparency of local governments. Such things as agenda postings, a quorum of elected officials cannot meet outside of a public meeting, and in this case, proper agenda descriptions of items to be considered during a meeting.

The agenda must include a brief description of each item of business that will be discussed, providing enough information for the public to know what the legislative body will be considering during the meeting. Generally, the legislative body cannot take action on an item that is not included on the meeting agenda.

On Jan. 3, the City Selection Committee met. Among the things decided at the meeting was to name one of the mayors in a temporary role to the Local Area Formation Commission. LAFCO’s key role is to manage orderly growth and development in a county.

A vote was taken and Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue was elected over opposition from mayors who wanted Soledad Mayor Anna Velazquez to fill that role. But several people, including Melodie Chrislock, the managing director of Public Water Now, and Wes White, an advocate for housing for the homeless community and other nonprofit interests, is accusing the committee of violating the Brown Act because it allegedly failed to properly agendize the vote on the Jan. 3 committee agenda.

The action that was taken was the election of Donohue to the LAFCO commission until a longer-term appointment could be made at the Feb. 7 meeting, but the agenda item stated:

“In January an annual review of all committees’ active/existing appointments with terms and serving at the pleasure of the City Selection Committee will be considered for changes in its appointed members. Consideration shall be given for automatic and regional rotations of an alternate member being seated as a primary member.”

There was no mention that a vote was to be taken on the LAFCO seat. The issue is contentious because the makeup of the LAFCO board can have a direct impact on whether or not the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District can move forward with an acquisition of the local assets of California American Water Co.

The description went on to say city representative can declare their interest in December the year prior that they want to be considered for an appointment. Again, nothing about LAFCO. In the draft minutes of that meeting that were approved by the committee on Friday, was a clear description that a discussion and vote was taken on the LAFCO issue.

White, in a letter submitted to the committee, demanded that because of the alleged failure to adequately agendize the LAFCO vote, the committee must rescind the appointment, properly agendize the item on a future agenda and allow public comment on the item.

“Please be advised that you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand to cure and correct the challenged action,” White wrote. “If you fail to do so, legal action may be initiated to nullify the action taken and to ensure future compliance with the Brown Act.”

The Monterey Herald submitted both the Jan. 3 agenda and Friday’s minutes of that meeting to the San Rafael-based First Amendment Coalition, or FAC, for review. David Loy, the legal director of FAC, in a telephone conversation on Thursday, said it is unclear if a court action would be successful in proving a Brown Act violation.

Loy said the statue has been interpreted to apply a “common sense” approach to agenda items, and that the description of the item on the Jan. 3 agenda, while not specifically mentioning the LAFCO, was broad enough to inform the public that some kind of appointment would be discussed.

“It certainly wasn’t a model of clarity,” he said.