Brown Act violation to result in revote by Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

In the latest round in a long-simmering battle between a community activist and Sonoma County government — and in particular, Supervisor James Gore — the activist appears to have won a point.

In an Aug. 30 letter to vocal government critic Adina Flores, county counsel Robert Pittman acknowledged that Gore violated California’s open meetings access law when he participated in the Aug. 1 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors meeting via Zoom without posting proper notice.

As a result of the violation, four items approved during the Aug. 1 meeting have been scheduled for a revote Sept. 12.

“The County of Sonoma Counsel has confirmed that I am correct regarding recent concerns presented in a Cure & Correct letter in reference to Brown Act violations,” Flores told The Press Democrat in a written statement.

“County Supervisors continue to be above the law despite their dishonesty to the taxpayers. Our elected officers best represent profit and political narratives rather than the people.”

Gore apologized for what he called “a clerical mistake on my part” and said he was looking forward to voting on the items again and moving forward. But he took the opportunity to outline what he views as a vendetta on the part of Flores.

“I think it’s pretty common knowledge this person is stalking me and my family, confusing things like common everyday technicalities with conspiracy theories,” he said in an interview. “And I use those words very clearly. She’s acting like basically driving around with a broken taillight is akin to vehicular manslaughter. Unfortunately, I’m used to that. I have a restraining order against her partner.

“I knew when I was getting that order that I was anchoring them to me and inciting her rage. At the same time, it was the right thing to do. They had threatened my family, including my 7-year-old son, with violence.”

In June 2022, the county won a workplace restraining order against Flores’ fiancé, Shelby Pryor, after he shouted at Gore from the sidewalk through an amplified microphone during a supervisors meeting two months earlier. Pryor’s tirade that day allegedly included references to guns and an invitation to fight aimed at Gore’s son, who was 7 at the time. Pryor later said he assumed Gore’s son was an adult.

The current dispute arose when Gore traveled to Austin, Texas, on official business to participate in the National Association of Counties’ annual conference in late July. He stayed in the state to vacation with his family near Galveston Bay, where the Gores have a vacation property.

Supervisor Lynda Hopkins was absent and unable to participate in the Aug. 1 meeting, and several items on the agenda required a four-fifths vote for passage. So Gore arranged to log into the supervisors meeting from the Helen Hill Library in League City, Texas.

California governmental code permits teleconferencing, Pittman stated, and the meeting agenda indicated Gore would be attending remotely.

Flores took exception to his involvement. She corresponded with a League City librarian while the Aug. 1 meeting was still in progress, and immediately fired off an email to the board of supervisors and Pittman.

Flores cited California Assembly Bill 2449, a law stating an official may participate in meetings remotely only if they document “just cause” or “emergency circumstances.”

But as Pittman explained in his first letter to Flores on the topic, dated Aug. 28, Gore’s participation didn’t rest on AB 2449, which sprang from the COVID pandemic. Rather, he was abiding by the traditional teleconferencing rules laid out in the Brown Act. Those require only that each teleconference location be disclosed in the agenda for the meeting, and that the location be accessible to the public.

Flores pushed back, noting the 72-hour rule in another message to Pittman. The League City librarian had told her in an email on Aug. 1, “We have just confirmed that (Gore) is here. He handed an agenda to our staff and told them to post it, which we are not doing, due to being in another state.”

Her persistence prompted a second letter from Pittman, who then acknowledged the violation.

“We have conferred with Supervisor Gore, and he confirmed that he inadvertently overlooked the 72-hour rule because it did not apply during COVID,” he wrote to Flores. “The County believes that Supervisor Gore substantially complied with the traditional rules for teleconferencing. Notwithstanding this position, based on the late posting, this letter sets forth the County’s plan to correct and cure the alleged Brown Act violation.”

Most of the items considered by the board of supervisors Aug. 1 required only a three-fifths vote for passage. Because the four participating supervisors adopted all of them unanimously, Pittman contended, Gore’s votes were immaterial.

Not so for two items on the consent calendar and two on the regular calendar, all of which called for at least four affirmative votes.

Those included:

•Adoption of a resolution authorizing Regional Parks to accept a $906,000 grant from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to implement riparian and wetland habitat restoration at Shiloh Ranch Regional Park.

•Adopting a resolution authorizing acceptance of a $140,000 grant from Sonoma Land Trust for fuel reduction projects at Sonoma Valley and Calabazas Creek Regional Parks.

•Authorizing a contingency set-aside of $174,000 in the 2023-24 county budget to support Animal Services and a reduction in permitting fees for the dairy and food industries.

•And approving a $1.5 million allocation from American Rescue Plan Act funding to expand low-level broadband network design.

Delaying the passage of those measures for at least seven weeks will not result in any negative impacts to the county, according to county communications manager Paul Gullixson.

“A 4/5ths vote was not required to accept the grant,” Gullixson said in an email. “It was only required to adopt the resolution to make a budgetary adjustment to expend the grant funds.”

Flores’ recent criticism of Gore goes beyond his remote attendance. She has alleged the supervisor lives in Texas, which would represent a violation of state law.

“I don’t understand why a politician from California would spend taxpayer monies on a home mortgage in the conservative state of Texas,” Flores, who currently lives in Vallejo, wrote in her statement to The Press Democrat.

Gore sounded exasperated by her contention.

“I’m tired of responding to these false accusations from someone who has been terrorizing my family and many in the community,” Gore said. “Furthermore, I live and work full time in Sonoma County, where I was raised and am now blessed to raise my own children.”

Gore said he supports public access laws and works hard to adhere to them. But after conversations with Pittman, he said, he believes his recent transgression was a minor issue.

“For anyone who wants to assume intent, I made the time to be on the call. I posted it. I’ve never hidden from a thing in my life,” Gore said. “But why even have to make comments like this? I show up at the library, and she’s frantically calling someone at the front desk in another state to put a camera on me.

“This is not about public input. It’s about someone who has a false notion and is just trying to play gotcha.”

You can reach Phil Barber at 707-521-5263 or phil.barber@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @Skinny_Post.