By @Marcus Detwiler
On October 8, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 557 (Hart) into law, a bill sponsored by CSDA related to the Ralph M. Brown Act (the Brown Act) and emergency remote meeting procedures.
AB 557 builds on the success of Assembly Bill 361 (R. Rivas, 2021), an earlier bill also sponsored by CSDA that was widely used by public agencies during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergencies. AB 361 allowed local agencies to meet remotely during certain states of emergency using revised Brown Act meeting procedures; while this made it possible to conduct the people’s business during emergency situations, the authority provided by AB 361 was set to expire at the end of 2023 due to the inclusion of a sunset date in the original legislation. In light of this sunset date, CSDA and other local government stakeholders sponsored AB 557, which struck the sunset date from the emergency remote meeting procedures, thereby extending them indefinitely. Following the passage of the earlier bill, AB 361, CSDA had heard from some of its members and other public agencies that the 30-day renewal process involved in the AB 361 framework was too cumbersome, as some agencies with fixed meeting schedules had times throughout the calendar year when greater than 30 days would elapse between each public meeting. AB 557 remedies this by changing the 30-day duration of AB 361 resolutions to 45 days, providing agencies with an additional two weeks before it will be necessary for the agency to renew its resolution under the AB 361 process in order to continue meeting remotely under the modified Brown Act procedures.
CSDA was joined by the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, and the California School Boards Association in sponsoring AB 557. Each of these local government stakeholder associations had members affected by the operation of the emergency remote meeting procedures, meaning each had reason to support the bill. By coming together to support AB 557, the bill had clear and obvious local government support. Additionally, the bill’s author, Assembly Member Gregg Hart (D-Santa Barbara), was previously a county supervisor for Santa Barbara County and a council member for the City of Santa Barbara. In Assembly Member Hart’s capacity as a county supervisor, he played a vital role in navigating the county’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning he was exceptionally well-versed in the specifics of local government emergency response and well-suited to author the bill.
AB 557 managed to pass through the Legislature without a single “no” vote, though it was not without some trial and tribulation. Confusion about some specific wording in the portion of the California Government Code section that the bill was amending ultimately was resolved by striking all references to “social distancing” within the bill’s text, though that change did not meaningfully affect the operation of the underlying emergency remote meeting procedures. Adding some further drama to the process was the fact that a slew of other bills seeking to amend the Brown Act, also in relation to remote meetings, were introduced this year. That there were bills that intended to amend the same California Government Code section meant that AB 557 would be caught up in the double-jointing process, in order to avoid a situation where AB 557 or another Brown Act bill would be unintentionally chaptered-out and nullified. It also necessitated educating stakeholders that AB 557 was distinct and unique from the other bills.
Nevertheless, AB 557 managed to overcome the obstacles in order to make its way to the Governor’s desk, where it managed to get Newsom’s signature and become law. The volume of support from CSDA members – stretching to multiple pages in committee analyses – made clear just how important this legislation was, and proved instrumental in the bill’s passage. CSDA will continue to advocate on behalf of its members on this and related matters.
#BrownAct
#COVID-19
#AdvocacyNews#FeatureNews