A meeting of the Otay Water District Board of Directors on July 1, 2026, was plagued by procedural confusion, technical failures, and accusations of violating California's open-meeting law, the Brown Act. The issues centered on a last-minute change to a publicly noticed remote meeting location and a subsequent, prolonged failure of the district's audio-visual systems, which prevented public participation for over an hour.

The controversy began when a citizen journalist and government watchdog, who identifies as "Chula Vista Live Data," attempted to attend the meeting at a residential address in Spring Valley listed on the public agenda for Director Gary Croucher's remote participation. Upon arrival, the journalist, Robert, found no public notice posted and was allegedly told by a resident that no public meeting was taking place. Seeking answers at the district's headquarters, he was informed that the director, who had been dealing with health issues, had recovered and would attend in person, making the remote location unnecessary.

This unannounced change, coupled with a complete failure of the teleconferencing and audio systems, led to significant delays and accusations of Brown Act violations. The meeting, scheduled for 3:30 p.m., did not get properly underway until 4:45 p.m. after IT staff established a backup system. During the blackout, the public livestream showed only a logo, with no audio or video. The journalist argued that by publishing a remote address, the district was obligated to ensure public access there, regardless of last-minute changes. "You’re literally in violation of the Brown Act conducting this meeting," he stated during public comment. "If you would have canceled the meeting, you’re not in violation." Robert expressed frustration, noting, "This agency doesn't mind to waste the public's time. They could have checked the Zoom before the meeting and they didn't."

In response, the district's general counsel asserted that the agenda information was accurate when posted 72 hours prior and that public access was not denied since the director was present at the main meeting. Citing the technical issues, the board took a formal recess and voted to acknowledge the failure before restarting the meeting from the beginning. Despite the rocky start, the board proceeded with its agenda, which included recognizing student winners of the "Being Water Wise" poster contest, celebrating the conclusion of a pilot high school internship program with the Sweetwater Union High School District, and approving the fiscal year 2026–2027 budgets and rates.

Further at the end after closed session no video could be seen on the zoom when reporting out and voting on an item.

The incident highlights the growing pains public agencies face in managing hybrid meetings and the critical importance of reliable technology and transparent procedures. As local governments increasingly rely on digital platforms for public engagement, this event serves as a stark reminder that when technology fails, the public's trust and right to participate hang in the balance. The question remains: will agencies default to transparency—pausing and properly re-noticing—or press ahead at the risk of undermining their own legitimacy?

LISTREAM:

AGENDA: https://lf.otaywater.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1055608&dbid=0&repo=OWD

According to a local resident who attended, the district had publicly noticed a commissioner’s remote participation address as an additional meeting location—then voted during the meeting to disallow that remote attendance, effectively removing the listed site without reissuing the agenda. The resident says this deprived the public of access and notice required by law for meeting locations and changes.

PRIOR EXAMPLES

LA JOLLA – A meeting of the San Diego Community Power (SDCP) Community Advisory Committee, scheduled for Thursday, June 11, 2026, was abruptly canceled after a local citizen journalist exposed a failure to provide adequate public notice at one of its designated meeting locations. The incident has raised questions about public access and procedural compliance under the Brown-Ralph M. Brown Act.

The meeting was officially noticed to be held in person at two locations: the Port of San Diego and a private residence in La Jolla, listed as an alternate site for virtual participation. Robert, a citizen journalist from Chula Vista who live-streams local government meetings, traveled to the La Jolla address to audit the public's ability to access the proceedings. Upon arrival, he found no posted agenda or any signage indicating a public meeting was taking place, which is a requirement for public access.

After documenting the lack of notice and speaking with confused neighbors, Robert contacted SDCP officials directly via their public video conference link minutes before the 5:30 p.m. start time. He raised the concern that the La Jolla location was inaccessible to the public. "The public is welcome to join at these locations. So it would be a public meeting," Robert stated while investigating on-site, pointing out the discrepancy between the official agenda and the reality on the ground.

His inquiry prompted a quick response from the board. An SDCP representative called Robert back and confirmed the cancellation. Shortly after, the meeting chair officially announced, "Unfortunately, we are unable to hold the meeting at this time, and we will be canceling today's meeting. We will reschedule the meeting for a later date." The representative thanked Robert for "bringing that to our attention" and assured him that they would ensure all notice locations are accessible in the future.

This marks the second consecutive SDCP meeting where Robert has identified issues with public access, following a similar problem at a previous meeting involving the City of Chula Vista. This pattern of procedural errors highlights the crucial role of citizen oversight in ensuring transparency and accountability in local governance. As public entities increasingly utilize hybrid meeting formats, this incident serves as a stark reminder that the fundamental right of public access, whether in a government building or a private home, must be scrupulously upheld.

Live Stream:

**CHULA VISTA** – A special meeting of the San Diego Community Power (SDCP) board scheduled for Monday, June 1, 2026, was abruptly canceled after a local citizen, Robert Johnson, highlighted a significant public access issue. The meeting, intended to be held virtually via Microsoft Teams, was called off when Johnson, present at Chula Vista City Hall, pointed out that the publicly noticed location was not accessible for public participation as required by law.

The issue arose from the meeting's public notice, which stated that board members would participate virtually from locations listed on the agenda, including Chula Vista City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue. Under the Brown Act, which governs public access to meetings of local government bodies, if a location is listed on the agenda for a member's participation, it must be accessible to the public. Johnson arrived at City Hall to attend the 5:00 PM meeting, intending to test this provision.

Upon finding no designated room or access provided for the public, Johnson engaged with City Hall staff, who were initially unaware of the specific requirements for the hybrid meeting hosted by SDCP, a separate entity. Johnson methodically documented his efforts to gain access, contacting the City Clerk's office, the Mayor's office, and leaving a message for Councilmember Michael Inzunza, who was listed as a board member. "I'm at Chula Vista City Hall, which is a listed location, and they're going to close the city, and there's not going to be access to the public to attend," Johnson stated upon joining the virtual meeting from his phone.

His persistence paid off. Once connected to the virtual meeting, Johnson directly addressed the board, explaining the situation from the ground at City Hall. The board members, including the chair, acknowledged the problem. "The notice location for the Chula Vista location is not open. That... needs to be open for this meeting to continue. Unfortunately, we'll need to cancel," the chair announced to the attendees. The meeting was officially canceled shortly after it began.

This incident highlights the intricate challenges of ensuring transparency and public access in an era of hybrid and remote meetings. While technology offers flexibility, it also creates new responsibilities for public agencies to uphold the spirit and letter of open meeting laws, ensuring that no member of the public is inadvertently locked out of the democratic process.