Stand Up For California, a watchdog group that focuses on gambling issues affecting the state, is claiming the City of Porterville has been unresponsive to its Public Records Act requests.

The requests, made on Nov. 1 by the group’s director and founder Cheryl Schmit, stem from a lengthy dispute involving a local group of business owners (Coalition of Retailers) and the city that began several months ago.

Under Schmit’s direction, the Coalition of Retailers brought to the city’s attention an alleged violation of the Brown Act — the state’s open meeting law — when it reached a cooperative agreement during closed session with the Tule River Indian Tribe on March 16.

Under the agreement the tribe is required to receive prior written approval from the city before moving forward with any developments on 40 acres of land located near the Porterville Airport, which the tribe owns. Because tribe property is tax exempt, the small group of local business owners feared it would make way for unfair competition.

After the violation claims were dismissed by the Tulare County District Attorney’s office on Nov. 1, Schmit followed with the requests to the city.

In a Dec. 29 letter to City Manager John Lollis, Schmit outlines how the city’s response was flawed.

According to Schmit, the response was not received until Dec. 2, “clearly a violation of Government Code Section 6253 which mandates an initial response within 10 days,” she states in the letter.

Schmit also writes that the City’s response did not identify who made the decision as to what information would be provided nor made clear whether certain information was being withheld as an exempt item or being provided.

In addition, Schmit contends that although the City did provide an answer to a number of items requested, the response raises “serious and critical concerns regarding actions and inactions taken by the city.”

The most critical concern (and unrelated to the claimed Brown Act violation), she said, is that “the agreement negotiated between the city and the tribe appears to be judicially unenforceable.”

“The city has entered into an agreement with the tribe, waiving its sovereignty,” Schmit said over a phone interview. “A tribe can enter into a contractual agreement with another party but you want to be sure the tribe includes a component in the contract that says they’ve waived their immunity to suit, that way if it doesn’t live up to the agreement the other party can go to court and seek some sort of restitution.”

Schimt said that after reviewing the city’s response to one of her requests, the signed agreement is potentially an incomplete waiver of sovereignty, requiring the city’s immediate review. To bind the tribe to a contract and waive its immunity, she claims, a tribal resolution is necessary — something the city’s Administrative Services Manager, Patrice Hildreth, said the city is not in possession of.

“I believe that if they do not have a resolution agreeing to the terms of the tribe, the agreement presents nothing but unenforceable promises,” Schimt said. “That can be detrimental to the city itself and to the citizens of the community.”

She added that if the resolution does not exist, the city needs to consider re-doing the Memorandum of Understanding before the land goes into trust.

“If they city fails to do so they will later recognize they are in conflict and will have no political power to correct the problem and the city will be at the whim of the tribe,” Schmit said. “I’m hoping the elected officials will do the right thing and hold off on their support on the tribe’s fee to trust that way the citizens of the community can be assured that they have a binding agreement and everyone is really protected.”

As of press time, City Counsel Julia Lew said she, the council and city manager had received the letter over the holidays, and had not had a chance to discuss the matter.