Brown Act modernization bill runs aground

Jun 12, 2024

By Johnnie Pina, legislative affairs lobbyist

A bill that would have made it easier for some local advisory boards and commissions to meet remotely failed in the Senate Local Government Committee last week by a 0-4 vote. Cal Cities, Disability Rights California, AARP, and over two dozen local government groups supported the measure.

Asm. Blanca Pacheco, the bill’s author, called out several mischaracterizations by the opposition in a statement released shortly after. “I recognize that some people may argue that in-person participation is the best way to ensure that every voice is heard,” she said. “However, AB 817 aims to provide access for people who may face a host of barriers to in-person attendance.”

Supporters of the bill, including Cal Cities, argued that the Brown Act’s in-person requirement disproportionately stops older adults, people with disabilities, single parents, people who live in rural areas, and other marginalized communities from participating in local governance bodies.

“California is a huge state, and most counties have a large geographic area, and members find it very difficult, if not impossible, to attend meetings,” Janie Whiteford, president of the California IHSS Consumer Alliance, told the committee last week.

Participation in local advisory bodies, boards, and commissions often leads to local elected office, as well as state and federal leadership positions. AB 817 would have allowed those advisory members to take part in online public meetings without posting their physical location.

Pacheco limited the bill so that members could participate virtually if they did not have the ability to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or other entitlements.

State advisory bodies already enjoy a similar flexibility. However, that rule is set to expire on Jan. 1, 2026, along with other remote meeting statutes.

The Senate Local Government Committee asked Pacheco to take nine amendments, seven of which she accepted. The two she rejected would have exempted advisory members who receive a stipend and added an in-person quorum requirement. Pacheco noted that these two changes ran counter to the goals of the bill, which was to enhance operations and public participation.

Pacheco held the line and did not accept those amendments, and the bill subsequently failed in committee. While the outcome is disappointing, this is not the end. The issue will likely come up again in the coming years, especially as open meeting laws are set to sunset.

She later doubled down on her commitment to inclusivity and accessibility. “Today, that meant standing with those left behind by our current system to provide a platform of change for the unheard voices in our communities,” Pacheco said. “I remain dedicated to advocating for policies that promote accessibility and look forward to creating a workable solution next legislative session."