Two new bills would make government remote teleconferences more accessible by allowing elected representatives to telecommute into public meetings outside of a state of emergency.
At the start of the pandemic, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a series of executive orders that waived certain provisions of the Brown Act, including the requirement to provide notice of each member’s teleconference location, to teleconference from a public location that is accessible and that at least a quorum of the members of the local body participate from locations within their jurisdictions.
On June 11 Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, rescinding these modifications effective Sept. 30.
Assembly Bill 361, which was approved by Newsom on Sept. 16, allowed remote meetings during a gubernatorial state of emergency to be subject to the modifications from Newsom’s initial executive orders until Jan. 1, 2024.
Assembly Bill 1944
AB 1944, introduced by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José) and Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), would require a meeting’s agenda to identify the members participating remotely.
If a member is going to participate remotely after the agenda was posted, the agenda would have to be updated.
Officials would be exempt from disclosing their location under two circumstances:
- If it is the first remote meeting after the bill’s passage in which the legislative body votes on whether members will have to disclose their location
- If a majority vote determined they did not have to
This exemption would continue until the legislative body voted to require it.
The provisions of AB 1944 would sunset on Jan. 1, 2030, if passed.
AB 1944 passed in the Assembly local government committee with five in favor and two opposed on May 4. It is ordered for a third reading.
AB 1944 is currently supported by a coalition including the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Association of California Healthcare Districts, the Association of California School Administrators, the California Association of Public Authorities for In-Home Supportive Service and the League of California Cities*.
“We have learned during the pandemic that such participation is effective, transparent and actually encourages participation from a broader component of the public than was anticipated,” the coalition in support wrote, according to the legislative floor analysis.
AB 1944 is currently opposed by a coalition including the California News Publishers Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the First Amendment Coalition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Californians Aware*, the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, the Society for Professional Journalists/Los Angeles*, the Orange County Press Club and the National Writers Union of Southern California.
The coalition opposing AB 1944 writes that the bill would “abolish longstanding democratic protections that require public meetings to be held in public venues where government officials can be seen and engaged by the public,” according to the legislative floor analysis.
Assembly Bill 2449
AB 2449, introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), would allow members of a legislative body to remotely appear at meetings if a quorum of the legislative body participates in person and is identified in the agenda.
This bill would also require the body to receive and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities.
AB 2449 passed the Assembly Local Government Committee with seven votes in favor and one opposed and is currently ordered for a third reading.
AB 2449 is currently supported by the Three Valleys Municipal Water District.
“AB 2449 will eliminate the previously existing concept of teleconference locations and will revise notice requirements to allow for greater public participation in teleconference meetings of local agencies,” wrote the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, according to the legislative floor analysis.
AB 2449 is currently opposed by a coalition including the California News Publishers Association, the ACLU California Action, the First Amendment Coalition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Californians Aware*, the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability and the Society for Professional Journalists/Los Angeles*.
The coalition opposed to AB 2449 wrote that it supports the provisions of the bill that promote public access to remote participation, however, it “ties that expanded access to removal of existing requirements for those who have sought and agreed to public service in local government,” according to the legislative floor analysis.
*Follow Our Courts‘ Executive Editor Toni Momberger is a former board member of Californians Aware, a former member of the League of California Cities and a current member of the Society of Professional Journalists/Los Angeles. She did not participate in any discussions about these bills.
