Recent storms in California have continued to test our emergency preparedness. On March 28, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded his storm state of emergency to include the counties of Alameda, Marin, Modoc, and Shasta in addition to the 43 other counties already under an emergency declaration. Local agencies attempting to conduct the people’s business during this most recent event were well-positioned to conduct Brown Act compliant board meetings under AB 361 (R. Rivas, 2021) in cases where in-person attendance proved unsafe. However, action is needed to retain this authority.
AB 361, sponsored by CSDA, affords local agencies the ability to hold teleconferenced meetings under alternative Brown Act requirements during times of an emergency. However, these emergency remote meeting provisions will only remain in place until the end of 2023—unless this year’s AB 557 (Hart) is signed into law.
CSDA is sponsoring AB 557 to eliminate the January 1, 2024 sunset on the provisions added to the Brown Act by AB 361. This year’s AB 557 would also revise the current 30-day renewal window for resolutions passed as part of the emergency remote meeting procedures to 45 days.
Special districts are encouraged to submit a letter in support of AB 557. Download a sample letter, complete an automated form letter, and find additional information at csda.net/advocate/take-action/brown-act557.
CSDA is also collecting experiences from its members about the impacts recent storms and other emergencies have had on district meetings. Please share your feedback by visiting csdaforms.wufoo.com/forms/q1prcmo50dh1p76/.
AB 557 is not the only Brown Act related legislation introduced this year. Following is a list of additional active Brown Act bills that CSDA is in the process of reviewing:
AB 817 (Pacheco) — This bill would allow “subsidiary bodies” (i.e., a legislative body that serves exclusively in an advisory capacity and is not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or any other entitlements) to meet remotely without the Brown Act requirements traditionally associated with teleconferencing (e.g., that agenda meeting notices are posted at all teleconference locations) and without regard to any emergency situation. Each member of the subsidiary body would be required to participate through both audio and visual technology. Subsidiary bodies looking to avail themselves of this flexibility would be required to obtain from the legislative body that established them, by majority vote before teleconferencing for the first time, and every 12 months thereafter, findings that 1) the legislative body has considered the circumstances of the subsidiary body, 2) teleconference meetings of the subsidiary body would enhance public access to meetings of the subsidiary body, and 3) teleconference meetings of the subsidiary body would promote the attraction, retention, and diversity of subsidiary body members.
SB 411 (Portantino) — This bill would allow a board, commission, or advisory body of a local agency, the membership of which board, commission, or advisory body is appointed and which board, commission, or advisory body is otherwise subject to the Brown Act, to use teleconferencing in order to hold public meetings. “Advisory body” includes, but is not limited to, a neighborhood council that is an advisory body with the purpose to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs that is established pursuant to the charter of a city with a population of more than 3,000,000 people (i.e., the City of Los Angeles) that is subject to the Brown Act. These entities would be allowed to use the process established by AB 361 (R. Rivas, 2021) irrespective of any emergency. This bill is also an urgency measure, requiring the support of two-thirds of both houses to pass.
AB 1379 (Papan) — This bill would provide that a local agency may instead post agendas at a singular designated physical meeting location, rather than at all teleconference locations. The bill would remove the requirements for the legislative body of the local agency to identify each teleconference location in the notice and agenda, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, and that at least a quorum of the members participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction. The bill would instead provide that, for purposes of establishing a quorum of the legislative body, members of the body may participate remotely, at the designated physical location, or at both the designated physical meeting location and remotely. The bill would require the legislative body to have at least two meetings per year in which the legislative body’s members are in person at a singular designated physical meeting location. Notably, AB 1379 also revises a number of provisions added to the Brown Act by AB 2449 (Lee, 2022).
SB 537 (Becker) — This bill takes the framework established by AB 361, designed only for emergency situations, and allows certain agencies to use those provisions without regard to an emergency. The agencies that would be able to teleconference under those provisions are limited to boards, commissions, or advisory bodies of multijurisdictional, cross county agencies, the membership of which is appointed. “Multijurisdictional” in this sense means a legislative body that includes representatives from more than one county, city, city and county, special district, or a joint powers entity. The bill would also require a legislative body to provide a record of attendance on its internet website within seven days after a teleconference meeting. This bill expands the definition of “just cause” added as part of AB 2449 to include situations in which an immunocompromised child, parent, grandparent, or other specified relative requires the member to participate remotely.
#AdvocacyNews
#FeatureNews
#BrownAct
#EnvironmentandDisasterPreparedness
#Governance