City officials receive Brown Act teleconference strategies and clarification

During a recent ILG webinar, more than half of the 700 attendees said that technological challenges are the greatest hurdle to holding online meetings.

For the past two years, cities have had to balance conducting business in an open, transparent manner while protecting public health. In a recent Institute for Local Government (ILG) webinar, Attorneys Julian A. Viksman and Brendan G. Adams covered common Brown act issues and clarified parts of AB 361 (Robert, Rivas), a bill supported by the League of California Cities that allows public agencies to conduct remote meetings under modified Brown Act requirements.

During the webinar, ILG conducted a round of informal polling and found that most public agencies are still conducting virtual or hybrid meetings. Only 14% were meeting in person. A significant majority, 58%, said that technological challenges, such as poor internet connections or tech literacy, were the greatest hurdle when holding virtual public meetings. Roughly a quarter reported no challenges at all. 

Teleconferencing has long been a part of the Brown Act. However, AB 361 offers an alternative, less onerous pathway to compliance if the Governor proclaims a state of emergency and if a public agency meets certain conditions. Notably, AB 361 allows agencies to meet remotely without making the teleconference location accessible to the public and without a quorum from within its boundaries.

Public agencies must also allow residents an opportunity to offer comment in real-time. Additionally, legislative bodies cannot act on meeting agenda items if the public broadcast is disrupted due to unreliable software, spotty internet connections, or other issues.

The webinar highlighted a range of related challenges and questions. Attorneys Julian A. Viksman and Brendan G. Adams clarified that SB 361 does not change how officials can moderate public comment. Therefore, officials can use common online meeting functions, such as the mute button and polling. However, they discouraged the usage of breakout rooms, as doing so might limit which representatives that people can see and interact with, thus leading to a Brown Act violation. 

Viksman and Adams also noted that agencies can stream traditional, in-person meetings to increase access and transparency if all other Brown Act requirements are met, such as the opportunity for residents to attend in-person. However, officials may wish to consider a range of factors before doing so, including the reliability of available technology and the potential for in-person and online disruptions, in addition to standard public health and safety concerns.

More than half of all webinar attendees surveyed reported an increase in participation when streaming virtual meetings, with 36% reporting that participation was about the same or less. However, Viksman and Adams urged cities to pursue a strategy that is best for their residents, noting that many older constituents or those without reliable, high-speed internet may have trouble participating in virtual meetings.

For more strategies, including how to manage the 30-day proclamation requirements, please watch the full webinar. Visit ILG’s website for more information about upcoming programs and resources.