Antioch activist seeks evidence of Ogorchock’s Brown Act violation complaint against other council members
By Allen Payton
During the Antioch Council meeting on Tuesday night, Council Member Lori Ogorchock accused other council members of violating the state’s Brown Act open meeting law by holding “serial” meetings. In addition, she claimed that information from closed session meetings of the council had been shared publicly. Ogorchock asked that the matter be placed on a council agenda “ASAP.”
The Brown Act defines a serial meeting as “a series of communications, each of which involves less than a quorum of the legislative body, but which taken as a whole involves a majority of the body’s members.”
In a letter to Antioch City Attorney Michael Vigilia on Thursday, Antioch Real Estate Broker and long-time resident Mark Jordan asked for evidence to support Ogorchock claims. Jordan successfully sued the city over the misappropriation of money from the sewer and water funds to the police budget, last year.
Following (and attached) is Jordan’s complete letter: Jordan Letter to Vigilia re Brown Act complaint
March 16, 2017
City of Antioch
Mr. Michael G. Vigilia, City Attorney
P.O. Box 5007 Antioch, CA 94531-5007
Dear Mr. Vigilia,
Under the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that include but are not limited to the complaint filed by Council Person Ogorchock concerning alleged Brown Act Violations made on March 14, 2017 by her.
I desire to see the formal complaint and the evidence Ms. Ogorchock provided with the complaint. This evidence should comply with the California Code of Evidence Divisions 1 through 11 inclusive. It should state the names of witnesses Ms. Ogorchock supplied with her complaint who have first hand and actual knowledge of the alleged events, not simply though hearsay, fabrication, fantasy or alternative facts.
Request is also made for any supporting documents you hold produced by you,
Mr. Steve Duran or Mr. Ron Bernal.
If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $50. However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the complaint filed by Council Person Ogorchock. This information is not being sought for commercial purposes.
The California Public Records Act requires a response within ten business days. If access to the records I am requesting will take longer, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested records.
If you deny any part of, or this entire request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.
Thank you for addressing my request.
Sincerely,
Mark Jordan
When asked if he had heard back from Vigilia, Jordan said, “The only response from the City Attorney was he received my letter and the only response from Lori was that she submitted it to the correct person.”
“They have 10 business days to respond,” he continued.
“I sent it to everyone on the city council. I believe in total transparency when it comes to government,” Jordan added. “I’m not trying to shoot anyone in the back.”
the attachments to this post:
Jordan Letter to Vigilia re Brown Act complaint
Jordan Letter to Vigilia re Brown Act complaint
Mr. Mark Jordon,
Great job! When you get the information I would like to know if you have time to educate me on these matters?
Please find me on Facebook, Renee Sparks. I really would like to meet and learn from you.
I’m not happy with the direction our city is going.
Thank you!
Of course, California Public Records Requests are to be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office which tracks all requests. But fortunately, Mr. Jordan had me as a cc on his email to the City Attorney.