By Haylynn Conrad
I’m all for government transparency. The people of Malibu deserve to know how decisions are made, who’s influencing them, and why certain policies move forward. But transparency shouldn’t come at the expense of actually getting things done. Unfortunately, the Ralph M. Brown Act — California’s open meetings law — makes it a lot harder for local officials like me to do the job we were elected to do. I had no idea until recently anything about this Brown Act. I actually asked everyone, including the governor of this state, if he would suspend it, and I got a clear “no.” But he also said if I want, I can write legislation to change it for the future — thanks, I’ll add that to my to-do list.
The Brown Act was designed to prevent backroom deals and ensure public participation in government. Okay, both of those things are great, right?
But in that it also prohibits a majority of city council members from discussing city business outside of advanced publicly noticed meetings, even informally. That sounds reasonable, in theory. In practice, it creates unnecessary roadblocks that make collaboration almost impossible.
I’m a born collaborator and brainstormer. I love listening and learning. At the Malibu elementary school I opened 10 years ago (and recently closed due to fires), we taught the kids the importance of communication, critical thinking, and iteration. Our favorite was the lessons on the gifts of failure, but if we can’t communicate together, we just fail and don’t have the opportunity to iterate that into success. This is a problem with the government. It is the least creative experience I’ve ever had. I just finished the book ABUNDANCE by Ezra Klein and it just highlighted the dysfunction of systems that had good intention once but can cause more harm then good.
Think about it: With a law like the Brown Act, how are we supposed to tackle a complicated issue — say, making PCH safer — if we can’t even brainstorm with more than one colleague at a time? We’re expected to make informed decisions on policies that affect thousands of people, yet we can’t legally deliberate outside of a public meeting, where time is limited, and conversations often become more about optics than actual problem-solving. There’s an audience, we are on a podium, under stage lights with a microphone with a limited time to offer solutions and we do this for a few hours every two weeks. We have to stick to someone else’s agenda. This is not process it’s theater. No wonder not much gets done. I have personally attempted to agendize my own topics and I have sent them into the city manager and they have not seen the light of day.
The Brown Act law treats even the most casual conversations as a potential violation. If I dare text two fellow council members about a policy concern, or if we run into each other at a community event and talk about city matters, that could be considered an illegal “serial meeting.” The result? The kind of real, back-and-forth discussions that lead to better ideas and stronger policies just don’t happen. Instead, we’re forced into rigid, scripted discussions in public meetings, where transparency is prioritized over effective governance. I can’t tag or like or comment on other council members posts. It’s a violation if more than two council comment on mine. I have no idea what my council members are up to, and we can be doing redundant efforts.
I love transparency and I’m all for it but this is at the expense of meaningful results for the city we love. We do a lot of talking at the podium but not a lot of implementation. There’s weeks between meetings and I get more done meeting with the residents of Malibu daily then I do in the few hours we meet every other Monday in City Hall. That’s not my fellow councils fault but I believe it’s the process.
And here’s the kicker: Malibu, like the vast majority of cities in California, operates under the same weak council-strong manager (I’m not making it up — that’s what I learned the term is) form of government.
That means that to my surprise that the city council isn’t actually responsible for running day-to-day operations—we set policy, but it’s the city manager who implements it. The Brown Act makes collaboration among council members difficult, yet at the same time, we’re expected to work through a single administrator to get anything done. So not only are we restricted from openly deliberating with each other, but we also have limited authority over execution. It’s literally out of our hands after we vote. That’s a recipe for slow, reactive government rather than proactive, innovative leadership. I see that as an end result of the current system in California. We are all a result of this type of clumsy leadership.
Malibu isn’t alone in this. Out of California’s 482 incorporated cities, approximately 97% operate under the council-manager system. In this structure, the city council provides direction, while a professional city manager, appointed by the council, handles daily operations, staff, budgeting, and administration. This model is meant to bring efficiency and expertise to local government while keeping politics out of day-to-day operations…if you are lucky. Once the council votes, it’s out of our hands and into the managers.
Meanwhile, only five cities — Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, and Fresno — operate under a strong mayor system, where the mayor is the city’s chief executive, directly overseeing departments and playing a dominant role in policy implementation. Unlike in council-manager cities, where the mayor is largely a ceremonial figure with one vote on the council, strong mayor cities centralize executive power in a single elected official. Being mayor in these city manager cities like Malibu is like a participation prize.
This widespread reliance on the council-manager model underscores just how important it is for council members to be able to work effectively with each other and with their appointed administrators. Yet laws like the Brown Act make that harder, limiting how elected officials can communicate and collaborate—ultimately hindering the very efficiency this system was designed to promote.
Let’s be honest — this doesn’t lead to better decision-making. Instead of working through ideas in advance and refining them before they go public, council members often come to meetings unprepared to have meaningful debates. Discussions feel like performances, where people read off prepared talking points instead of engaging in real, dynamic problem-solving. Heck, I have been known to read speeches here and there. I feel uncomfortable as my personality thrives in a group think tank with ideas and pathways that illuminate innovation and then implementation. That’s where my energy is. The city council meetings feel very forced and bizarre to me.
The meetings seem like they would be the means to the end after we have learned, debated, discussed, and weighed options at length about the various issues. Then we vote and move on, but what you see is actually us, for the first time, the council has been allowed to sit together to discuss these matters in front of an audience. I don’t think the city residents understand that, as I didn’t. It’s not intuitive, it’s inhibiting and cumbersome.
We need to find a balance. Transparency shouldn’t mean dysfunction. The Brown Act needs reform so that council members can collaborate without fear of violating the law. Other states have figured this out—they have open meeting laws that protect the public’s right to know while still allowing officials to do their jobs. California should follow their lead and update the Brown Act to allow for small-group discussions or work sessions without violating the spirit of open government. Luckily and, recently, we voted on a series of weekly working meetings where the council can meet and discuss urgent Malibu issues like exploring sewers, implementing new technologies to our permitting process, fire safety measures. Without meetings more often to discuss these issues freely, how will we understand them, let alone vote on them responsibly? These are very serious decisions that will shape the future of Malibu, and having just a few limited discussions together isn’t advantageous for anyone.
People don’t elect us to sit in silos, afraid to talk to one another. They elect us to lead, to tackle tough issues, and to make thoughtful decisions. But when the very laws meant to protect democracy end up paralyzing it, it’s time for change. The Brown Act needs to evolve so we can govern the way Malibu — and every city in California — deserves.
Haylynn Conrad is a current Malibu City Council member; you can reach her at hconrad@malibucity.com.