Question
A citizen here has asked the DA to investigate Riverside County supervisors for possible violation of the “serial meetings” provision of the Brown Act. Could someone explain to me exactly how a series of two-person conversations can violate the act? On a five-member board, if A discusses X with B, and then B discusses X with C, does that violate the law? Or does A have to ask B to discuss it with C in order to violate? Please advise.
Answer
The Brown Act precludes a majority of the supervisors from “develop[ing] a collective concurrence as to action to be taken” through a series of communications, either by telephone or through intermediaries.
This would seem to mean that, on a 5-member board, if A talks to B and they agree to vote a particular way, and the B talks to C and C agrees to vote the same way, that would violate the Brown Act regardless of whether there is any evidence that A asked B to talk to C.
However, the Brown Act does not prevent A from talking to B or B from talking C. It prevents them from developing an agreement, even through a series of conversations, on what a majority will do on some item that is or will be pending before them.
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.