The relevant text of AB 361 can be found at California Government Code section 54953 (e)(1), which reads as follows (emphasis added):
(e) (1) A local agency may use teleconferencing without complying with the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) if the legislative body complies with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subdivision in any of the following circumstances:
(A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
(B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
The reference “paragraph (3) of subdivision (b)” is to the typical Brown Act requirements (e.g., that meeting agenda notices be posted at each remote meeting site). “[P]aragraph (2)” refers to the procedural requirements of AB 361-compliant meetings.
Agencies currently relying on AB 361’s provisions for their remote meetings should begin preparations for the transition to alternative meeting procedures. Those agencies looking to continue meeting remotely under non-emergency circumstances should become familiar with the terms of AB 2449; CSDA has previously written about AB 2449 in an earlier eNews article. Agencies may wish to collaborate with their colleagues and share plans and preparations for adjusting their meeting procedures on CSDA’s Open Forum.
#AdvocacyNews#FeatureNews#COVID-19#BrownAct#Special District News