Q: City Council posted a notice for a Special Meeting (Study Session). Then during the “meeting” it was referred to as a workshop and there was no record of the meeting kept.
Study sessions have audios and council meetings are televised. Additionally, there is a pdf that lists the “consensus” of the council regarding chartering our general law city.
My question is, can a city post one meeting and then switch to something different basically to avoid record keeping. I didn’t attend because I thought it would be televised. Then I thought I would be able to purchase an audio recording, but none exists.
This seems like an attempt to avoid transparency and I fear if this is okay, it will start occurring with more frequency. Interested in how this jibes with the Brown Act.
A: The Brown Act requires that no action be taken or matter discussed at a meeting, whether that meeting is “general,” “special,” or “emergency,” unless the action or discussion is included on a properly posted agenda. Govt. Code section 54954.2. However, an agency is only required to include a “brief general description of each item.” Moreno v. City of King, 127 Cal. App. 4th 17, 26 (2005).
It is not clear whether the situation you describe would be considered a violation of the Brown Act. The Brown Act does not require that the form of the discussion — be it “study session” or “workshop” — be specified, as long as the subject matter to be discussed is so described.
The terms “study session” and “workshop” and the procedures attendant to each are not terms used in the Brown Act at all.
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to First Amendment Coalition hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.