Question
The School Board is trying to accuse one trustee of a Brown Act violation because he sent out an email in support of a project they were going to be voting on in the near future. The email went to all trustees as well. None of them responded and no discussion was made back and forth with this email.
We do not think it is a violation, but need to know from an expert.
Answer
The issue you raise is whether the act by one trustee of sending an email to all other trustees that urges them to take a certain position on a matter before them is an illegal “meeting’ as that term is used in the Brown Act.
The Brown Act in numerous provisions sets requirements for covered boards to conduct their business in a way that is open to the public. Among these are the requirements that all “meetings” of the board be noticed and agendized. See, for example, Govt. Code sections 54953, 54954, 54954.2.
A “meeting” is defined to include not just physical gatherings of members of the board. Govt Code section 54952.2(b) specifically states that “any use of direct communication . . . or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of a legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited.”
Interpreting this section of the Brown Act, The Attorney General has opined that the sending of an email between a majority of the members of a covered board as an effort to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken was in fact a violation of the Brown Act. 84 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 30 (2001) (Copies of these opinion are available on the Attorney General’s website.)
So, yes, it does appear that the trustee violated the Brown Act by sending the email to all of his fellow trustees with the purpose that the board develop a collective concurrence on the issue at hand.
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.
Asked & Answered posts should not be relied on as legal advice, and FAC makes no guarantees about their completeness or accuracy. All posts carry a date of publication that readers should take note of in assessing their usefulness, given that laws and interpretations of them may change over time. Posts predating Jan. 1, 2023, that discuss the California Public Records Act may contain statute numbers no longer in use. Please see this page for a table showing how the California Public Records Act has been renumbered.