One Brown Act Violation After Another
Curtailment of public comment is followed by noticing failure
The board of directors of the Hopland Public Utility District met on Nov. 13, three weeks after receiving two formal complaints from ratepayers alleging the board violated the Brown Act during its October meeting. At that meeting, the board voted to raise water service rates by 40% and wastewater rates by 25%, effective Nov. 1. Both the October and and November meetings were held at Brutocao Cellars.
The HPUD board’s first action — closing the meeting to hold a closed session — appeared to trigger yet another Brown Act issue: failure to comply with public-notice requirements for an agenda item.
The agenda posted at the Hopland Post Office listed a closed-session item: Anticipated Exposure to Litigation, Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2). It did not identify the title or specific nature of the potential litigation, nor did the board later state on the record that such disclosure would jeopardize service of process on unserved parties or HPUD’s ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations—such statements are required when an agency withholds information.
After the closed session, public comment began.
A reporter asked, “Is there going to be a report back from closed session?”
A board member replied, “Information received and direction given to staff.”
The reporter followed up: “Are you taking any action on the Cure and Correct letter? Are you going to re-notice the meeting as requested, as required by the act?”
“We are going to send that up for discussion with legal,” Board President Joan Norry responded.
“What was the last half hour?” asked Vernon Budinger, author of the Cure and Correct letter.
“Closed session,” Norry said.
“I thought that was litigation,” Budinger replied.
“No, it was legal counsel,” Norry said.
Jared Walker, deputy director of the Ukiah Valley Water Authority—which provides management services to HPUD—interjected: “It was a conference with legal counsel in closed session for anticipated exposure to litigation, so there was an item discussed there in closed session. But the report out was literally just information received and direction given to staff.”
Neither Norry nor Walker asserted that further disclosure would jeopardize service of process or settlement negotiations, as required by the state law.
Attorney Jonathan Weissglass, who recently won a Brown Act judgment against the City of Berkeley on appeal, said that if the closed session was held in response to Budinger’s letter, the Act requires that the letter be made available for public inspection 72 hours before the meeting.
A similar issue unfolded in Fort Bragg in August, when the city attorney advised the mayor not to hold a closed session after an agenda referenced anticipated litigation with an undisclosed party. Three residents objected, and the item was withdrawn.
During a presentation to the Arcata City Council two years ago, attorney Nubia Goldstein noted that Brown Act violations are effectively judged in two courts: state court and the court of public opinion. Goldstein said agencies can be required to pay attorney’s fees if they are found in violation.
“From a criminal standpoint, there’s a provision that can charge an elected member with a misdemeanor,” Goldstein said. She noted that a misdemeanor requires intent: “The district attorney would have to prove you violated the Brown Act intentionally,” she said.
The HPUD board of directors received their first “Cure and Correct” letter from ratepayer Matthew LaFever on October 12.
“California’s Proposition 218 and Ralph M. Brown Act exist to make sure local governments like HPUD act transparently and fairly when raising rates or making major financial decisions. These laws aren’t just guidelines — they’re the foundation of how local government is supposed to work: publicly, accountably, and with respect for the people who pay the bills,” LaFever wrote. “At the October 9 meeting, those standards weren’t met.”
Vernon Budinger sent a separate “Cure and Correct” letter on November 6. Budinger’s letter contained allegations of procedural misconduct. He also asserted that that the board had offered a faulty financial justification for raising water rates by 40% and wastewater rates by 25%.
The alleged procedural misconduct included unreasonable limitation on public comment and the late release of financial statements. In terms of the financial basis of the rate increases, Budinger cited the absence of a cost-of-service analysis, reliance on speculative costs, and a disputed estimate for the Caltrans ADA project.
The law gives legislative bodies 30 days to respond to cure and correct notices and inform the person who wrote the letter of its decision. If the legislative body does not remedy the violation, a challenger must commence an action within 15 days of receipt of the legislative body’s written decision, or if there is no written decision, within 15 days of the expiration of the 30-day window.
The tone of the Nov. 13 HPUD meeting grew less contentious when the board shifted to a discussion of proposed Caltrans work on Highway 101 to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Both board members and ratepayers expressed concern that the project could divert traffic away from downtown Hopland for as long as three years. They also shared frustration over the lack of clarity about the project’s scope, financing and timeline, and agreed on the need to bring all involved agencies together.
The next meeting of the HPUD will be on December 11, 2025. If at that point the HPUD board has not indicated that it will re-do the meeting on the rate increase, ratepayers will have just days to decide whether to go forward with a lawsuit.
Mendocino County David Eyster did not respond on Monday to a request for comment on when repeated violations of the Brown Act rise to the level of misdemeanor charges.
Read our Brown Act coverage:
Hopland Public Utility District Faces Brown Act Challenge
Hopland Public Utility District Board Limits Public Comment, Votes to Triple Water Rates