Entities meeting in a closed “workshop” setting

Answer

The fact that the board of supervisors’ meeting was called a “workshop” does not mean that it was not a “meeting” subject to the Brown Act. A meeting is defined as “[a]ny congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.” Cal. Govt. Code section 54952.2. The Brown Act cannot be evaded by calling a “meeting” something else (such as a workshop, for example), or deeming it “informal,” or insisting that no action would be taken, if it was in fact a gathering of all or most of a legislative body to discuss public business.

A meeting may occur even if the members of the body took no action as long as the topic was official business. A “meeting” is not limited to gatherings at which action is taken by the relevant legislative body. Deliberative gatherings are includes as well, which includes not only collective decision making but also the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision. Frazer v. Dixon Unified School District, 18 Cal. App. 4th 781, 794, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 641 (1993).

In your situation, it appears that the Brown Act would not prevent the board from voting in a “workshop setting” because the workshop was very likely a “meeting” under the Brown Act. The board, however, should have allowed public comment before voting on the “options.” California Government Code section 54954.3 provides that members of the public be given the opportunity to comment “before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item.” By allowing the public to comment at the end of the “workshop” (or meeting) and after the board’s consideration and vote, the board appears to have violated the Brown Act even though the board made some sort of indication that it could change its vote after public comment was received.