Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Business Improvement Districtwas a case before California's Fourth District Court of Appeal in 2001 concerning open meetings.
[edit] Important precedents
This case established that the entire history of a non-profit needed to be considered in order to determine if it was created by a public agency and thus subject to the California Open Meeting Act
[edit] Background
- California law allows cities to establish seperate tax districts on the behalf of the citizens of those districts in order to fund improvements and maintenance.
- Hollywood Entertainment District Business Improvement District (BID I) was the first of these special districts in Los Angeles, and was passed with the intention of it be governed by a non-profit. The Hollywood Entertainment District Property Owners Association (POA) was the non-profit that administered the funds of BID I
- Hollywood Entertainment District II Business Improvement District (BID II) is a second unique tax district within Los Angeles County. The Hollywood Entertainment District Property Owners Association (POA) is a private non-profit that controls the use of the taxes collected in BID II as well.
- Epstein, a property owner in BID II, sued the POA under the California Open Meeting Act seeking to compel them to hold open meetings and post agendas.
- On June 11, 1999, a trial court ruled in favor of the POA and declared that because it was established two years prior to BID II and that it was not created by the city, it was not subject to the Borwn Act.
- on August 4, 1999, Epstein appealed the decision. [1]
[edit] Ruling of the court
The trial court ruled in favor of POA, stating that because the city did not create POA and because it existed prior to BID II it was not subject to open meeting law.
The court of appeals ruled in favor of Epstein, declaring the POA subject to the California Open Meeting Act.
The court begins its ruling with a consideration of International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., which established that non-profit corporations can be created by legislative bodies through the inaction as much through actually passing laws to create the organization. Based on this ruling, the court concluded that the city did create POA by establishing that the funds follected in BID I would be administered through a non-profit and then naming the recently created POA as the administrator of funds collected in BID I and II. Further, they declared that the entire history of a non-profit must be looked at to determine if it was in fact created by a city and thus subject to public meeting laws. The court ruled that the POA, because it was created by the city and served a function that the city government had delegated to it, did in fact fall under the Brown Act and was required to comply with all associated requirements. [1]
[edit] Associated cases
[edit] See Also
[edit] External links
[edit] References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ruling of the Court
