Thumbnail photo by Gavin Van Alstine Though one member said that such a statement would imply wrongdoing, Crescent City Harbor commissioners last week agreed to issue a formal commitment that their finance committee would comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act. This unconditional commitment is in response to a cease and desist letter Davis attorney Paul Boylan sent to the Crescent City Harbor District on behalf of his client, county resident Linda Sutter. The July 14 letter alleges that the CCHD finance committee met without providing public notice and failed to conduct open meetings. It states that the district’s finance committee denied the public the opportunity to comment and record their meetings and failed to keep a record, according to an Aug. 27 report from the district’s attorney, Ryan Plotz of Mitchell Law Firm. “By issuing this unconditional commitment, Ms. Sutter is unable to file a lawsuit on the basis of the cease and desist letter,” he told commissioners, adding that CCHD wasn’t admitting to wrongdoing. “Given this individual’s propensity for filing litigation against the district, I think it likely that the district would have to defend an action in court and incur the cost and expense of doing so.” The Board of Commissioners unanimously approved issuing the unconditional commitment, though Commissioner Dan Schmidt said he felt that the statement in the formal letter to Sutter “…and not repeat the challenged past action as described” was an admission of bad behavior. “I just don’t want to say we agree not to repeat the bad behavior,” he said, suggesting to add an . “It implies that we engaged improperly.” Plotz said that the Brown Act dictates the language that should go into a letter of unconditional commitment. Board President Gerhard Weber, however, said that he and his colleagues will have to look at the ad-hoc committees they have formed and determine whether they are a standing committee or not. He said that the finance committee had always met with a specific purpose as part of its agenda and “not necessarily as a finance committee.” Weber said the CCHD Board should be more clear about the purpose of an ad-hoc committee and propose a window of time for which the committee would be active. “For example, for us looking to improve emergency procedures, that has a beginning and it supposedly is having some kind of an end short-term,” he said. “As long as we have a whole list available to the public, they will know what the different ad-hoc committees are, who’s involved and then that should provide transparency.” Plotz said he wanted to review the CCHD’s bylaws to better identify the district’s standing committees and provide guidance on the role of its ad-hoc committees. He pointed out that standing committees hold open meetings with minutes and its members must comply with the Brown Act requirements when it comes to talking about committee matters. “Adhoc committees … are truly temporary in nature and are formed for a defined purpose that has a limited time period,” Plotz said. The Harbor District’s attorney said he would coordinate with Harbormaster Mike Rademaker to do the review of the CCHD bylaws and bring it back to the Board of Commissioners “in the near term.”