To the Readers of Arcata1.com: Thank you for your interest in these important issues. This article on Serial Meeting violations, from April 6, 2023, has over 485 views over the past six weeks. I am amazed ! You know what I say: Our wonderful city has been breaking State law left and right. These violations of transparency and public involvement are taking place because we’re in a housing crisis, we’re told. And we’re told also that the City’s position is that no laws are being broken.
To me, there is no reason here at all for the Planning Commission to take actions that confuse our citizens — you and me and all of us — and to minimize public input. The continuous “special meetings” of the Planning Commission in April, May, and June were an overt effort to block citizens’ involvement.
For more on the special meetings and the Brown Act, be sure to see:
Calling it a “Special Meeting” does not make it a Special Meeting
Calling it a “Special Meeting” does not make it a Special Meeting – Part 2
Gary Patton: Let’s not wait around for someone else to tell us
and all the Brown Act articles, here.
The nature of our government in Arcata seems so different than it was 20 or more years ago. There can always be disagreements, but the process we’re seeing now of being shut out — that isn’t right.
Please write if you have questions or want to add to the discussion. Thank you again.
— Cheers, Fred Weis fred @ arcata1.com
Original article date: April 6, 2023
The Brown Act also prohibits use of a series of communications, of any kind, among a majority of members of a legislative body, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
These are commonly referred to as serial or seriatim meetings. Unlawful seriatim meetings can occur through:
Contacts with a majority, through staff members or others acting on behalf of the body or one of its members.
What is the law ?
Section 54952.2(b)(1) prohibits a majority of members of a legislative body outside of a lawful meeting from directly or indirectly using a series of meetings to discuss, deliberate or take action on any item of business within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. Paragraph (b)(2) expressly provides that substantive briefings of members of a legislative body by staff are permissible, as long as staff does not communicate the comments or positions of members to any other members.
The following was included in the letter from Fred Weis, March 28, 2023 “New Planning Commission “Framework” for meetings unfortunately violates the Brown Act” on this website here (as an article) and here (as a PDF of the original letter).
If you have not read that article or letter, you can read it for the full background of what the issues are here.
Two sources on Serial Meetings, from the Internet.
There are dozens of articles on this. Highlighting has been added.
From the California League of Cities
Further, substantive staff briefings are permitted to answer questions and provide information to individual members of a legislative body
if staff does not serve as an intermediary and communicate to members of the body the comments or positions of other members.
The Brown Act also prohibits use of a series of communications, of any kind, among a majority of members of a legislative body, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. These are commonly referred to as serial or seriatim meetings. Unlawful seriatim meetings can occur through
- In-person contacts among a majority of members of a legislative body;
- Technological contacts (such as fax, email, text message, telephone, or social media) among a majority; or
- Contacts with a majority through staff members or others acting on behalf of the body or one of its members.
However, the ban on seriatim meetings does not prevent a staff member from engaging in separate conversations or communications, outside of a meeting, with members of a legislative body to answer questions or provide information regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency, if the staff member does not communicate to members of the legislative body the comments or position of any other member of the legislative body.
The legal viewpoint from a law firm that specializes in the Brown Act
Best Best & Krieger – Attorney at Law
https://www.bbklaw.com/bbk/media/library/pdf/major-provisions-and-requirements-of-the-brown-act.pdf
- Meetings
The central provision of the Brown Act requires that all “meetings” of a legislative body be open and public.
The Brown Act definition of the term “meeting” (Section 54952.2) is a very broad definition that encompasses almost every gathering
of a majority of Council members and includes:
“Any congregation of a majority of members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.”
In plain English, this means that a meeting is any gathering of a majority of members to hear or discuss any item of city business or potential city business.
- Serial Meetings
In addition to regulating all gatherings of a majority of members of a legislative body, the Brown Act also addresses some contacts
between individual members of legislative bodies. On the one hand, the Brown Act specifically states that nothing in the Act is intended to impose Brown Act requirements on individual contacts or conversations between a member of a legislative body and any other person (Section 54952.2(c)(1)). However, the Brown Act also prohibits a series of such individual contacts if they result in a “serial meeting” (Section 54952.2(b)).
Section 54952.2(b)(1) prohibits a majority of members of a legislative body outside of a lawful meeting from directly or indirectly using a series of meetings to discuss, deliberate or take action on any item of business within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. Paragraph (b)(2) expressly provides that substantive briefings of members of a legislative body by staff are permissible, as long as staff does not communicate the comments or positions of members to any other members.
A serial meeting is a series of meetings or communications between individuals in which ideas are exchanged among a majority of a legislative body (i.e., three council members) through either one or more persons acting as intermediaries or through use of a technological device (such as a telephone answering machine, or e-mail or voice mail), even though a majority of members never gather in a room at the same time.
Serial meetings commonly occur in one of two ways; either a staff member, a member of the body, or some other person individually contacts
a majority of members of a body and shares ideas among the majority (“I’ve talked to Councilmembers A and B and they will vote ‘yes.’ Will you?”)
or, without the involvement of a third person, member A calls member B, who then calls member C, and so on,
until a majority of the body has reached a collective concurrence on a matter.
We recommend the following guidelines be followed to avoid inadvertent violation of the serial meeting rule.
These rules of conduct apply only when a majority of a legislative body is involved in a series of contacts or communications.
The types of contacts considered include contacts with local agency staff members, constituents, developers, lobbyists and other members of the legislative body.
- Contacts with staff
Staff can inadvertently become a conduit among a majority of a legislative body in the course of providing briefings on items of local agency business.
To avoid an illegal serial meeting through a staff briefing:
- Individual briefings of a majority of members of a legislative body should be “unidirectional,” in that information should flow
from staff to the member and the member’s participation should be limited to asking questions and acquiring information.Otherwise, multiple members could separately give staff direction thereby causing staff to shape or modify its ultimate recommendationsin order to reconcile the views of the various members, resulting in an action outside a meeting.
- Members should not ask staff to describe the views of other members of the body, and staff should not volunteer views [the views of another member] if known.
- Staff may present its viewpoint to the member, but should not ask for the member’s views and the member should avoid providing his or her views unless it is absolutely clear that the staff member is not discussing the matter with a quorum of the legislative body.
These suggested rules of conduct may seem unduly restrictive and impractical, and may make acquisition of important information more difficult or time-consuming. Nevertheless, following them will help assure that your conduct comports with the Brown Act’s goal of achieving open government.