“It should be noted that the deficiency of the agenda description appears to have been part of concerted efforts between representatives of the city and the Murphy’s Bowl LLC to limit the notice given to the public,” the letter said. “Furthermore, the generic name of Murphy’s Bowl LLC was used intentionally to obfuscate the identity of the proposed project and those associated with it. Although these tactics were not violations per se of the Brown Act, they indicated concerted efforts to act contrary to the spirit of the Brown Act. Although the evidence is not sufficient to prove that any member of the city council participated in these efforts to obfuscate, the city council bears the ultimate responsibility to comply with the Brown Act.”

Source: Los Angeles Times May 29, 2019 15:40 UTC