Q: The Academic Senate of our public college has an established body called the Academic Executive Board, which is made up of seven or so members (including the president, vice president, etc.) of the Academic Senate.
The Executive Board meets regularly and the Academic Senate bylaws state the meeting must be open to the public. The overall consensus of the Executive Board is that the meeting should be open to the public. (This issue was brought up because members of the student newspaper were asked to leave one of executive board meeting a few weeks ago.)
Since then we’ve met with the academic senate president to discuss the meeting being open and he brought it to the attention of the Executive Board who agreed that the meetings should be open.
However, some members of the Executive Board feel that the board should not have to follow certain rules of the Brown Act (posting agendas 72 hours in advance, rules about closed sessions) because they say they don’t make policies, are not an ”advisory board” and they don’t vote on issues.
Our thoughts are that the Executive Board is covered by the Brown Act because they meet regularly, provide advisory input and suggestions to the academic senate president who sets the agenda for the academic senate, and are discussing topics extremely relevant to public interest. The Executive Board also contains all the key officers from the academic senate.
Can you please provide your thoughts on whether this Executive Board should be covered by the Brown Act and specifically have to post agendas and abide by the other rules specific to the Brown Act?
Thank you so much for your support of student journalism and freedom of the press.
A: The Academic Senates of community colleges are subject to the Brown Act (see 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 252 (1983), an opinion of the Attorney General concluding as much, and Educ. Code section 72674 (requiring that the governing boards of “auxiliary organizations” of the community colleges comply with the Brown Act).
Whether the Academic Executive Board is also covered by the Brown Act at Government Code section 54952(b). That section applies the Brown Act to committees created by formal action of a covered board.
But “advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body” are not covered by the Brown Act.
“Advisory committees” are distinguished from “standing committees, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance or resolution, or formal action of the legislative body.”
Because the Academic Executive Board was apparently created by the formal action of the Academic Senate, the determinative issue is whether it is an “advisory committee” or a “standing committee.”
As the Brown Act indicates, if the Academic Executive Board has a defined meeting schedule set by the senate’s formal action, then it will be a standing committee subject to the Brown Act.
It will also be subject to the Brown Act if it has “continuing jurisdiction.”
The Attorney General has explained that a standing committee will have “continuing jurisdiction if it has the authority to hear and consider issues within the parent board’s authority — even if it is just consulted on administrative matters — and that its authority need not be renewed by the parent board. See 79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 69 (1996).
If the Academic Executive Board has these characteristics, it will be subject to the Brown Act and will have no discretion to ignore the notice and agenda requirements of that law.
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC 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.