THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT
California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq, enacted in 1953 by the California State Legislature in an effort to safeguard the public's right to access and participate in government meetings within the State.
Regulates how meetings are run, public notice, no outside meetings, etc.
Can they ask your name and address?
This issue came up during the resistance of the town of Potrero against Blackwater. Some of the residents were not comfortable providing their name and address, because of the threat of retaliation by Blackwater.
The Brown Act states that (1) the public may attend the meeting, and they are not required to sign any attendance roster or pay any fees:
Spectators' Right to Anonymity
54953.3. A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a legislative body of a local agency, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.
If an attendance list, register, questionnaire, or other similar document is posted at or near the entrance to the room where the meeting is to be held, or is circulated to the persons present during the meeting, it shall state clearly that the signing, registering, or completion of the document is voluntary, and that all persons may attend the meeting regardless of whether a person signs, registers, or completes the document.
and (2) that the public may address the body regarding agenda items or during public comment:
Spectators' Opportunity to Address the Body
54954.3. (a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2. However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the
opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee's consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body. Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.
(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.
However, the Brown Act does not explicitly state that a citizen may address the body and also not sign in, although it does seem to be a logical extrapolation. I (Raymond Lutz
) asked the State Attorney General’s office about this question, and Mr. Ted Prim of that office stated that he informally advises that members of the public need not identify themselves or provide their address, but it is suggested that the body may ask them whether they live in the service area of the body in question.
However, that office declined to provide a written opinion unless requested by a governmental official.
I contacted Bob Filner's office (April 4, 2007) to see if I could make progress on getting a written opinion on this matter, and we are now waiting on the Attorney General's office for a response.
The provisions of Closed Session exemptions are to be interpreted "narrowly", according to CA Attorney General Opinions.
Can I record the meeting? YES!
Cal. Gov't. Code §11124.1.
(a)Any person attending an open and public meeting of the state body shall have the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video recorder or a still or motion picture camera in the absence of a reasonable finding by the state body that the recording cannot continue without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that constitutes, or would constitute, a persistent disruption of the proceedings.
(b)Any audio or video recording of an open and public meeting made for whatever purpose by or at the direction of the state body shall be subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1), but may be erased or destroyed 30 days after the recording. Any inspection of an audio or video recording shall be provided without charge on equipment made available by the state body.
(c)No state body shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the broadcast of its open and public meetings in the absence of a reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings.
Summary of articles submitted (Add | All):
Number of topics: 12
- (M1545) 2015-02-22 Letter to El Cajon re Closed Session meeting on 2015-02-24 re ECPAC and ROCK CHURCH -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
- (M1532) 2015-01-05 Motion to allow video recording at CPUC hearings and their ruling, denying it. -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
- (M1452) 2014-06-06 Consumer Advocates Want Better Open Meeting Rules For California Regulators -- Erik Anderson, Kpbs News, Features Mia Severson
- (M1417) 2014-03-10 Formal Objection to Closed Session and ECPAC Lease Negotiations with The Rock Church -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
- (M1370) 2013-07-12 CPUC Bullies Cameraman -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
- (M1358) 2013-05-13 CPUC Kicks Lutz's camera out of the room -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight, Mentions Ecological Options Network
- (M1548) 2011-12-27 CA Attorney General Opinion 10-206 on Property Negotiation Exception to Brown Act -- , California Attorney General,
- (M1212) 2011-12-13 Letter to San Diego City Council re Brown Act Violation of 2011-12-12 -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
- (M1106) 2010-11-15 Grossmont Healthcare Board Denies Seat to Stieringer, Will Fill His Vacancy by Appointment -- Kenneth Stone, La Mesa Patch, Features James Stieringer, Ray Lutz, Barry Jantz, Stieringer Employment Scam [Includes claim of Brown Act violation by board meeting in closed session.]
- (M972) 2010-03-27 Council's oversight of meeting knocked -- Anne Krueger, Union Tribune, Features Raymond Lutz, Brown Act
- (M1549) 2007-01-09 Dennis Leary On Public Communications -- Dennis Leary, You Tube, Video emphasizes that the body can briefly discuss the item and put it on a future agenda, at the Ojai City Council Meeting
- (M1550) 2006-07-07 'Zuma Dogg' proves you don't have to ID yourself in public comment. -- Zuma Dogg, You Tube,