[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-280433-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-280433-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","folsom-city-council-staff-report-consideration-of-letter-in-response-to-demand-letter","Folsom City Council Staff Report - Consideration of Letter in Response to Demand Letter","","Folsom City Council staff recommends the council consider and approve an attached reply to Scott Rafferty’s cease-and-desist/demand correspondence alleging non-compliance with the Brown Act. The report outlines the January 10, 2024 background allegations, the applicable Government Code framework for responding within 30 days, and the effect of an unconditional commitment on admissions and potential litigation. It also states no financial or CEQA impacts are expected, and identifies the proposed attachments.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/folsom-city-council-staff-report-consideration-of-letter-in-response-to-demand-letter/280433/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/folsom-city-council-staff-report-consideration-of-letter-in-response-to-demand-letter/280433.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Olivia Brown","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What action does staff recommend the City Council approve?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Staff recommends the City Council consider and approve the attached reply to Scott Rafferty, providing an unconditional commitment to continue complying with the Brown Act.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What process does Government Code 54960.2 require for responding to a cease-and-desist letter?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The city may respond within 30 days by providing an “unconditional commitment” not to repeat the challenged actions, in substantially the form provided by the statute.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What are the consequences of providing an unconditional commitment?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The commitment does not constitute admission of a Brown Act violation, but it bars a potential plaintiff from pursuing litigation and collecting attorneys’ fees for past non-compliance tied to the specific actions the city committed not to repeat.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},280433,1790217281,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":90,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":33},16904993612988,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","# Folsom City CouncilStaff Report\n\n\n| MEETING DATE:   | 1/23/2024   |\n| --- | --- |\n| AGENDA SECTION:   | New Business   |\n| SUBJECT:   | Consideration of Letter in Response to Demand Letter Received  \u003Cbr>from Scott Rafferty Regarding Alleged Non-Compliance with  \u003Cbr>the Brown Act   |\n| FROM:   | City Attorney's Office   |\n\n# RECOMMENDATION/CITY COUNCIL ACTION\n\nStaff recommends that the City Council consider and approve the attached reply to ScottRafferty(Attachment 1)providing an unconditional commitment to continue to comply withthe Brown Act.  \n## BACKGROUND/ISSUE\n\nOn January 10,2024,the City received a cease and desist letter from Scott Rafferty(Attachment 2)alleging the following violations of the Brown Act on December 12,2022:  \n1.The failure to make available all non-exempt documents relating to council districts thatwere distributed to the council in advance of its December 12,2023 meeting;  \n2.The failure to permit the public to inspect the Agenda Packet and leaflet during themeeting;and  \n3.The receipt of special-interest communications during the meeting withoutcontemporaneous disclosure to the public,including the identification of the individualsdirecting the Council's actions.  \nAlthough staff disagrees with the alleged non-compliance,the Brown Act provides a processfor issues such as these to be resolved without further legal action.To that end,the BrownAct provides a prescribed form letter that the City Council may consider approving andsending in response to Mr.Rafferty's correspondence.  \n## POLICY/RULE\n\nThe Brown Act provides that a response to the cease and desist letter shallbe in substantiallythe form provided in Government Code section 54960.2(c)(1).The fact that the City Councilprovides an unconditional commitment shall not be construed or admissible as evidence ofviolation of the Brown Act.Government Code section 54960.2(c)(4).  \n## ANALYSIS\n\nGovernment Code section 54960.2 allows any interested person to submit a “cease anddesist\"letter to the City as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit over alleged past non-compliancewith the Brown Act.Pursuant to Section 54960.2(b),the City Council may respond to the\"cease and desist\"letter within thirty(30)days by providing an “unconditional commitment”not to repeat any or all of the actions challenged.By law,an “unconditional commitment”does not constitute admission of a violation,but it does bar a potential plaintiff frompursuing litigation and collecting attorneys'fees with respect to past non-compliance relatedto the specific action the City has “unconditionally committed”not to repeat.  \nThe City Council's reply must be approved in open session as a separate item of business,not under the“Consent”portion of the agenda,and in substantially the form as prescribed bythe Brown Act.Once approved,the Brown Act prohibits legal action by the potentialplaintiff;however,if such an action is nonetheless filed,the court is required to dismiss thelawsuit with prejudice if it finds that the City Council has provided an unconditionalcommitment pursuant to the Brown Act.  \n## FINANCIAL IMPACT\n\nThere is no legal expense associated with this item as the City Council has always compliedwith the Brown Act.In addition,providing the attached reply may reduce the chance oflitigation and any associated legal costs.  \n## ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW\n\nThe California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)does not apply to activities that will notresult in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment(CEQA Guidelines §15061(c)(3)),or is otherwise not considered a project as defined byPublic Resources Code §21065 and CEQA Guidelines §15060(c)(3)and §15378.The CityCouncil's consideration of a reply to the Brown Act cease and desist letter meets the abovecriteria and is not subject to CEQA.No environmental review is required.  \n## ATTACHMENTS\n\n1.Proposed reply from the City Council  \n2.Cease and desist letter dated January 10,2024  \nRespectfully submitted,  \nSteven Wang,Cit","cbCaiuvoCouvWaIP","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuvoCouvWaIP","pdf",522263,"English","# Recommendation/City Council Action\n## Background/Issue\n## Policy/Rule\n## Analysis\n## Financial Impact\n## Environmental Review\n## Attachments","[{\"question\":\"What action does staff recommend the City Council approve?\",\"answer\":\"Staff recommends the City Council consider and approve the attached reply to Scott Rafferty, providing an unconditional commitment to continue complying with the Brown Act.\"},{\"question\":\"What process does Government Code 54960.2 require for responding to a cease-and-desist letter?\",\"answer\":\"The city may respond within 30 days by providing an “unconditional commitment” not to repeat the challenged actions, in substantially the form provided by the statute.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the consequences of providing an unconditional commitment?\",\"answer\":\"The commitment does not constitute admission of a Brown Act violation, but it bars a potential plaintiff from pursuing litigation and collecting attorneys’ fees for past non-compliance tied to the specific actions the city committed not to repeat.\"}]","Folsom City Council Staff Report - Consideration of Letter in Response to Demand Letter | PDF",1789548065]