San Clemente City Council members are tackling two separate transparency issues that recently surfaced in the South Orange County coastal town.
This week, council members discussed an alleged violation of California’s transparency law — the Brown Act — and how to best handle public records requests.
During the Oct. 7 meeting, council members addressed an alleged Brown Act violation by Councilmember Zhen Wu, who apparently shared closed-door discussions about property negotiations with an outside party — a move his colleagues say stalled the real estate talks.
The matter was sent to the Orange County District Attorney’s office, which stated that Wu violated the Brown Act but ultimately chose not to bring the issue to trial.
Council members scheduled a discussion of Wu’s alleged violation of the Brown Act — a state law that keeps city council meetings open to the public — in order to determine if any punishment was necessary for his actions.
Instead of punishment, Wu ultimately pledged to recuse himself from participating in the real estate negotiations.
The Brown Act narrowly allows some discussions to be held in private, known as closed sessions.
The transparency law allows closed-door discussions of litigation, personnel matters and price and terms of payment for real estate transactions.
Under the Brown Act, council members are prohibited from disclosing any information from closed session discussions outside of those meetings.
In March, the council met in closed session to discuss real estate negotiations with multiple groups, including the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA), Talega Associates, LLC and Talega Maintenance Corporation.
The negotiations were regarding a potential property purchase near the eastern end of Avenida Pico.
“In this instance, Councilmember Wu was not one of the designated City negotiators,” reads the city staff report included with the Oct. 7 agenda.
“Nevertheless, Councilmember Wu admittedly had a conversation with a Board Member of the TCA. The Board Member shared the contents of the conversation with the Executive Director of TCA who contacted the City Manager with concerns about being questioned about their position regarding the properties,” states the staff report.
San Clemente City Manager Andy Hall said he was notified that Councilmember Wu shared closed session information regarding the ongoing property negotiation.
The issue was referred to the district attorney’s office, which concluded Wu violated the Brown Act in his communications about the negotiations.
“The OCDA received a request from the Council to clarify that the referenced Brown Act violation was committed (solely) by Councilmember Zhen Wu,” reads an Aug. 18 letter signed by Senior Deputy District Attorney Avery T. Harrison. “This letter serves as confirmation that the only Brown Act violation identified was by Councilmember Wu.”
Another letter from the district attorney’s office said that the San Clemente City Council “has adequately addressed the issue under the law” and, as a result, the office “will be closing its file on this matter.”
During the Oct. 7 council meeting, council members emphasized the serious nature of Wu’s alleged Brown Act violation.
“There was a deal that was close to being made, and we are now a year later, and the deal is pretty much stalled,” Councilmember Victor Cabral said during the meeting. “There is no deal. There is no transaction. We are trying to revive it.”
“The violation, in my view, that was made in discussing this with parties outside of our group, is a serious violation,” he continued. “It’s a breach of duty — of confidentiality. It’s an admitted violation of the Brown Act. It’s not a misstep.”
Wu, who was previously a planning commissioner in the city before he was elected to the council, offered an apology during the meeting.
“This is a lesson for me,” he said. “It’s also a lesson for continuous learning and an opportunity for improvement. I take it very seriously.”
The council considered a punishment for Wu, like a censure vote, but ultimately decided against any formal action when Wu offered to recuse himself from all closed session negotiation discussions on this specific topic moving forward.
“I will recuse this item forever because I don’t need to be part of that decision-making,” Wu said at the meeting. “I trust the rest of the council to make it.”
His decision to step back from the property negotiations seemingly eased his colleagues’ concerns.
“This is a serious matter,” Mayor Steve Knoblock said at the meeting. “I think Mr. Wu has been properly and publicly rebuked. I think he’s shown, in my opinion, sufficient contrition to acknowledge the indiscretion and is voluntarily setting himself aside from these matters. I’m satisfied that the appropriate action has been taken.”
San Clemente Looks to Publish Records Requests
At the same meeting, officials discussed another state transparency law known as the California Public Records Act.
This law gives members of the public the right to request and inspect any city documentation deemed a public record, including emails sent and received by city council members.
During Tuesday’s meeting, council members emphasized the increasing number of records requests sent to the city and how much staff time it takes up.
City leaders said the city averages about 1200 to 1500 requests for records every year. As of Sept. 30 of this year, the city has received over 1100 records requests.
Those requests cost the city about half a million dollars every year for staff to compile and distribute the information, city leaders said at the Oct. 7 meeting.
Council members supported the public’s right to ask for records but questioned why the number is so high and continues to grow over time.
“It’s hard for me to understand why our requests have more than doubled in that time period when our population hasn’t doubled, our size hasn’t doubled,” Councilmember Mark Enmeier said at the meeting. “There’s something going on here.”
“It just seems like there are a lot of frivolous things going on that are taking advantage of our city and taking advantage of the good nature of our democratic institution,” he continued.
In 2018, the city received 665 requests for records, according to the staff report. That number has increased nearly every year since — with 1514 requests in 2021 and 1545 requests in 2023.
In order to address increasing records requests, the council voted unanimously to create an online public records portal for residents to search through previous requests using keywords.
The change is meant to decrease the number of repeated records requests and give residents the option to view documents that have already been prepared for public inspection.
The council also voted to create a monthly summary of records posted on the city website for residents to review.
“It’s about transparency also,” Councilmember Rick Loeffler said at the meeting.
“The taxpayers should be able to know — why do we have to have a full-time staff member that we’re paying a lot of money to just to go over public records requests? I think the public should be able to have that information.”
Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor. Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.