By Donna Frye
Back in the mid ‘90s, I remember going to city council meetings to speak on issues that were important to me such as clean water and the public’s right to know what its government is doing and why.
I showed up because I hoped it would make a difference and also to help educate the public about their right to participate in government decisions, before, and not after, the decision was made. The open meeting laws that require public decisions to be made in public are known as the Brown Act. It also includes laws about public participation and remedies if the laws are not followed.
More often than not, however, I would wait hours to speak for my two or three minutes only to be made to feel like what I had to say didn’t matter; it felt like the decisions had been made in advance of the public meeting.
I referred to this exercise as “going through the drill.” The Brown Act refers to it as a collective concurrence and it’s not allowed. But it was usually really hard to prove.
Most recently, I was watching the news and reading the paper about paid parking at Balboa Park and saw there had been a press conference on January 27 at City Hall. A decision had been made to eliminate paid parking for some people, but not others, and I wondered how it all came about since there was no public meeting. It didn’t make any sense.
After some research, however, it became clear what had happened and on February 9, I sent the following cease and desist letter to the San Diego City Council.
February 9, 2026
RE: Request to Cease and Desist; Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq)
Dear San Diego City Council,
I am writing to request that your agency cease and desist from further violating the Ralph M. Brown Act and provide an unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the violation.
In particular, the Brown Act “provides that “[a] majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting…use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”
The Brown Act defines a meeting as “… any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and same location…to discuss, deliberate or take action on any item this is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”
However, on January 27, 2026 Council President La Cava, Council President Pro Tem Lee and Councilmember Elo-Rivera held a press conference at City Hall to jointly announce their proposal to suspend the Balboa Park parking fees for residents but keep the fees for non-residents.
All three councilmembers serve on the five-member Rules Committee. Therefore, they represent a majority of the Rules Committee members. La Cava is the chair, Lee is the vice chair and Elo-Rivera is a committee member.
The issue of paid parking at Balboa Park is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Rules Committee. In fact, the very next day, Item 2 on the Rules Committee’s agenda was a ballot measure proposal in support of free public parking at Balboa Park on Sundays for residents and nonresidents.
After the item was heard at the Rules Committee on January 28, Councilmember Campillo made a motion to support the ballot measure but amended it to make parking free for both nonresidents and residents not just on Sundays but every day and to forward the ballot measure to the city council. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Moreno. La Cava and Lee voted no and Elo-Rivera was absent, so Campillo’s motion to support a ballot measure for free parking at Balboa Park “everyday for everyone” failed.
The public was denied the opportunity to provide testimony at the January 27 press conference because no public notice was provided. The public was also denied a fair public hearing at the Rules Committee meeting on January 28 because a majority of the Rules Committee members made their decision in advance of the publicly noticed hearing.
Please provide the requested unconditional commitment in accordance with Government Code Section 54960.2(c) within 30 days of receiving this request. In addition, please require an annual, mandatory Brown Act training for the San Diego City Council and their staff, and put it on the agenda of a San Diego City Council meeting as an informational item no later than May 19, 2026.
Please notify me in writing as soon as possible to let me know whether you will be considering the unconditional commitment, in addition to the Brown Act training request, and, if so, when it will be considered at a public meeting.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.
Thx very much, Donna, for memorizing your much-justified concerns about the City Council’s apparent Brown Act violation, and demanding that the Council commit to not repeating this violation, and to pledge its committment to open government.
Thankyou i did not know or I forgot about that brown rule there are so many things they do that I’m not surprised by the sneakiness thank you again
Thank you, Donna, for holding the Council to account for not properly allowing for public participation.
Thank you, Donna, for your continued activism and advocacy for all San Diegans.
You’re a hero to us all Donna Frye, thank you.
Thank you Donna
As always Donna, you rock! Thanks. Quick statement about the City (and particularly Mayor Gloria’s) attitude toward public meetings and due process. A number of years ago during the Jacob’s Folly days when they wanted to put an 800 car paid parking garage (among other things) in Balboa Park they had a public hearing. First they made all residents go through the metal detectors and security while we watched the “pro” people go with the Council up the back stairs with no security. Then they cut our talking time from one minute to 30 seconds. But the worst thing was after all the comments had been made (pro-parking fee almost unlimited time and against we had to give our time to our speakers) the Council adjourned to another room to prepare their decision–that is ALL except Councilman Tod Gloria who sat there glaring at the audience. When the Council returned they gave their decisions and reasons EXCEPT when Tod Gloria gave his he simply read from a typed paper that had been in front of him the whole time. That’s due process in San Diego and it hasn’t changed. I am sensitive to this because I was involved in public hearings professionally for a number of years and was pretty well acquainted with the process required.
Thank you Donna. You really know your stuff. We’ve all been wondering what’s wrong with this picture of a City Council and Mayor.
I love her, she was the last fair politician understanding both sides of families and small businesses politician that the ever had
we’ve ever had, probably because she’s so down to earth and her and her husband both own a small business. And really represent the people of San Diego. And now we’re stuck with an ego maniac Sean ELO Rivera who has no business experience whatsoever he was a swim coach and he wants to run everything. Has the complete inability to see the consequences are from his decisions. Please explain Donna to us why when the city would be in such debt, we would immediately run out and spend 65 million dollars on trash cans, and commit 200 million dollars for bike Lanes. There has to be some serious corruption here because I really don’t think anybody’s that stupid.
.
Thank you Donna,
I filed a Ralph Brown Act violation against the City Council and Mayor with the District Attorney months ago due to moving Non Agenda public comment to the end of the meeting then failing to hold the Non Agenda Public Comment.
Unfortunately, unable to atrend 2/18 due to illness but I’m drafting a 2nd Brown Act Violation, due to written complaints filed in 2025 and the fact that City is still using the outdated 2007 Brown Act video on their website, missing 19 years of case law, and deliberately misleading the public, a planning dept staff member misquoting the Ralph Brown Act, in writing that led to further violations by a CPG.
The Grand Jury Finding demanded the CP 600-24 update in 2022, and the staff Recognition process of CPG was violated approving a CPG with only 4-6 max members instead of required minimum of 10, CPG never held election within 90 days, and a Waiver of Term Limits was motioned in 4/2025, violating requirement of only allowing waiver if below ten members. CPG was below 10 for a entire year and no action was taken to post the 6 vacancies on the Agenda, City was emailed and still no action accept they can investigate themselves.
Violations of Ralph Brown Act for COLLECTIVE CONCURRANCE, HUB & SPOKE, AGENDA POSTING, Voting on non emergency items not listed on the agenda, and violations on majority of the 27 pages of CP 600-24
Some violations were facilitated by the horrific & inadequate online CPG Annual Training on CP 600-24, and the Ralph Brown Act that is missing key sections. Staff written response to Ad Hoc Committees misquoted Brown Act as no mention of 72 hr requirement when Ad Hoc is composed on non members and has a quorum.
Following complaints of Ralph Brown Act and Council Pilicy 600-24, against the Skyline-Paradise Hills CPG, the City Attorney sent a response that they don’t intervene when they are specifically listed in the Raloh Brown Act complaint section, the Attorney General responded in writing questioning, why the City of San Diego, Attorney was not handling the Ralph Brown Act complaint!
Also, the Council Policy 600-24, complaint section does not require response to complaintee, and allows the alledged party/ guilty party to investigate themselves and decide if they violated the CP 600-24 and/or Brown Act.
Its basically defeats the purpose of a court, by people inckuding volunteers to decide themselves if they violated failing to physically post an Agenda 72hrs beforehand, Election on a CPG Chair position, and 8 other CPG positions never posted as a vacant position on February or January Agendas, electing 12 but posting 3 positions, illegal slate vote of 8 positions.
I have zero faith in the City of San Diego, complying with the uodated Brown Act AB regulations, when they fail to comply with prior Brown Act before the changes.
Failed to comply with the Legal Analysis, and Resolution of CP 600-24, allowing a CPG to hide information from the public multiple times before and after written cease and desist memos.