A law that would have extended the pandemic-era norm of allowing remote comment from members of the public during local government meetings was rejected last week by Gov. Gavin Newsom, drawing disappointment from its author and proponents who said the rule would have increased transparency and access to government.
“During the pandemic, when we were forced to basically have all our government meetings in remote platforms, the silver lining of it is that we saw an expansion of participation,” said Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-San Jose, who introduced the legislation. “People who normally would not be able to attend, people who are either working or differently-abled or had a barrier, were able to attend now, were able to make their opinion heard.”
Per the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, meetings of legislative bodies must not only be open to the public, but must allow members of the public to comment if they wish. Pre-pandemic, when meetings were held in-person at city hall buildings, this meant people would need to sit through multiple hourlong meetings in which several topics are discussed to provide comment typically limited to just a few minutes.
The bill, after many amendments, would have applied only to jurisdictions larger than 250,000 people, exempting cities on the Peninsula, which generally fall well below that mark. It also would have expired at the end of 2023.
A letter from the governor explaining his veto stated the bill “set a precedent of tying public access requirements” to population size, a “patchwork approach” which “may cause public confusion.” Limited flexibility and added cost to jurisdictions were also among the governor’s concerns.
Despite the veto, Lee said he will continue his effort to “update for the modern century” the Brown Act, adding that “it has a great premise and a great intention, but it has to change with our technology and our practices.”
He also noted the mismatch of practices already regarding public comment as some cities move to in-person meetings and others have stayed remote.
“Now, we don’t have a consistent standard across the state, it will be very interesting to see what results that produces,” he said.
Recommended for you
A letter signed by the city of Los Angeles and the League of California Cities raised concern similar to the governor’s, stating the measure would have imposed “significant unreimbursed costs to affected local agencies” and contained “major flaws that could hinder the goals of transparency and access.” The letter stated support for modernizing the Brown Act, but added “it is crucial we take the time to find the right policy solution based on consensus and learned experiences.”
Another concern raised in the letter and by the governor, was that the bill would require city employees to participate in person during declared state of emergencies, potentially putting them in harm’s way. The concern was in response to a section of the bill designed to provide flexibility during emergencies, according to Lee’s office.
“It’s a very strange misinterpretation,” Lee said, who added the issue never came up during the legislative process.
Though Lee, who at 26 years old did not serve on a city council or hold similar office (where interaction with the Brown Act would take place) before being elected, said he understands how prohibitive the rule already can be.
Previous iterations of AB 339 included requirements to expand translation services for major languages spoken by constituents during meetings. The bill also was originally to apply to all public meetings at any level for jurisdictions of all sizes.
“I’m very disappointed the governor did veto this bill, because for us the bill was already a real strong product of compromise,” Lee said. “Throughout the process, because of a really really strong opposition, stronger opposition than I even imagined to something I felt was very common sense, we basically watered it really down.”
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.