The governor proposes suspending the state\u2019s open meeting law requirement for local governments and public power agencies--known at the Brown Act. Assembly and Senate members are split on Governor Jerry Brown\u2019s proposal to put in limbo the more-than-50-year-old law that prohibits public agencies from holding secret meetings and requires prominent and early public notice of pending actions. Proposition 59 fortified the Brown Act in 2004. The state chief\u2019s proposal requiring munis to pay for compliance with California\u2019s open meetings law is aimed at saving the state $63 million. The law is named after former Assemblymember Ralph M. Brown, unrelated to the governor. It specifies that the state must reimburse the local agencies for the compliance costs or suspend the open meetings law. The Legislative Analyst Office recommends suspending the law although it \u201creduces transparency in government.\u201d The LAO analysis presented to the Conference Committee on the Budget Feb. 24 suggested replacing the act with open meetings \u201cbest practices\u201d to help protect the public interest. The state lags in reimbursing local governments for their time and costs in preparing meeting notices and postings to comply with the Act. County and other local public agencies\u2019 invoices for satisfying the Brown Act cost the state $20 million a year, according to the Analyst Office. It also concluded the state owed counties and other local public agencies $63 million to reimburse them for charges arising from the open meeting compliance the last few years. Senate conferees don\u2019t want to suspend the mandate, but do favor cutting reimbursements down to $53 million in the coming state budget year. Assembly budget conferees, so far, are not supporting the plan to suspend the open meetings law.