A Guide To Brown Act Changes Starting January 1, 2023

A Guide To Brown Act Changes Starting January 1, 2023

The Legislature passed three bills in 2022 that made changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”) effective January 1, 2023, summarized below. The Brown Act requires meetings of a local public agency’s governing body to be open and public, including charter schools. The new changes address board members’ remote participation in meetings (Assembly Bill 2449), removal of disruptive individuals from meetings (Senate Bill 1100), and circulation of public meeting materials (Assembly Bill 2647).

In addition, the Governor has announced that California’s current COVID-19 state of emergency will end February 28, 2023. If and when the emergency ends, agencies will no longer be able to trigger Assembly Bill 361’s remote meeting procedures in reliance on that emergency.

The upcoming changes are summarized below, to help schools and public agencies ensure they are prepared.

End of Current State of Emergency, and New Remote Participation Rules (Assembly Bill 2449)

As of December 2022, many local public agency boards continue to hold wholly virtual board meetings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Boards are expressly allowed to do this during a state of emergency by making specific findings under Assembly Bill 361 (2021). However, Governor Newsom announced that the COVID-19 state of emergency will end on February 28, 2023. If and when the state of emergency ends, agencies will no longer be able to trigger AB 361’s remote meeting procedures in reliance on that COVID-19 emergency.

Even after the state of emergency ends, board members may continue to participate remotely by telephone and/or videoconference under the Brown Act teleconference rules that existed before the pandemic. Those teleconference rules are found in Government Code section 54953(b).

Beginning January 1, 2023, Assembly Bill 2449 (AB 2449) also allows individual board members to participate in meetings remotely during “emergency circumstances,” such as physical or family medical emergencies, or for “just cause,” including childcare or caregiving needs, contagious illness, a disability, or travel on official agency business. Unlike the traditional teleconference rules, AB 2449 allows a board member to remotely participate without as much pre-planning. The board member’s teleconference location does not need to be posted on the meeting notice or agenda, and does not have to be open to the public. However, all of the following requirements apply when a board member is using the new AB 2449 rules:

Because of the many conditions for using AB 2449, we expect the traditional teleconference rules under the Brown Act may continue to be the go-to rules for board members seeking to participate remotely in meetings. AB 2449 sunsets on January 1, 2026.

Distribution of Public Meeting Materials (Assembly Bill 2647)

Assembly Bill 2647 (“AB 2647”) makes small changes to the requirements for agencies distributing board meeting materials to board members within 72 hours of a meeting. Currently, meeting materials distributed during the 72-hour window ahead of a regular meeting must be made available for public inspection at the office or agendized location at the same time they are distributed to a majority of the board, which can raise practical issues when documents are emailed and/or agencies are working remotely. AB 2647 gives agencies flexibility to instead post such materials online, so long as all of the following requirements are met:

Removal of Disruptive Individuals (Senate Bill 1100)

Senate Bill 1100 (“SB 1100”) amends the Brown Act to authorize the presiding board member (e.g., the board chair) to remove disruptive individuals from a board meeting, so long as the individual is first warned by the presiding board member that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and failure to cease such behavior may result in removal. If the behavior does not promptly cease, the individual may be removed.

“Disrupting” is defined as engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting. This includes failure to comply with regulations adopted by the board or engaging in behavior that constitutes the use of force or a true threat of force. “True threat of force” means a threat that has sufficient indicia of intent and seriousness, that a reasonable observer would perceive it to be an actual threat to use force by the person making the threat.

SB 1100 is in addition to existing Brown Act procedures for clearing the room when meeting order cannot be restored, as well as existing rights for agencies to adopt reasonable regulations on disruptive conduct.