Slideshow presentation during public comment at school board meeting

Answer

The Brown Act is California’s open meetings law, and addresses public comment at public meetings.  The Brown Act provides that:

(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2. However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee’s consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body. Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.
(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.
Cal Gov Code § 54954.3(emphasis added).

A meeting of a legislative body is considered to be a limited public forum for First Amendment purposes, and as such, the body faces a substantial burden in justifying any content-based restrictions on speech of members of the public during the public comment portion of the meeting.  Any limitations on content must be shown to be necessary to serve a compelling state interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.  See, e.g., Leventhal v. Vista Unified School Dist., 973 F.Supp. 951 (S.D. Cal. 1997). The restrictions adopted by the body must be reasonable, must be viewpoint neutral, and must preserve the purposes of the body’s limited forum.  A policy which attempts to suppress critical speech may be considered an unconstitutional content-based restriction. For example, the Leventhal court held that policies prohibiting members of the public from criticizing school district employees were unconstitutional because the policies promoted only one viewpoint — e.g. praising and maintaining the status quo.  By allowing only one viewpoint to be expressed, the policies foreclosed meaningful public debate on a particular subject.

The slide show that you reference in your inquiry also merits consideration.  There is nothing in the Brown Act that would prevent a member of the public from using his or her public comment period for a short slide show.  A legislative body can take action against “disruptive speech,” but it cannot prevent speech with which it does not agree merely by labeling it disruptive.  In the context of city council meetings, the Ninth Circuit has explained that “[a] speaker may disrupt a Council meeting by speaking too long, by being unduly repetitious, or by extended discussion of irrelevancies.  The meeting is disrupted because the Council is prevented from accomplishing its business in a reasonably efficient manner.  Indeed, such conduct may interfere with the rights of other speakers.” White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1990).  Thus, a California court recently upheld a verdict of willfully disturbing a public meeting against an individual who was arrested after dumping bags of garbage on the floor of a school board meeting in order to illustrate points he was making about trash-related issues. McMahon v. Albany Unified School District, 104 Cal.App.4th 1275 (Ct. App. 2003).

A crucial point in both of these cases is that it was not the content of the speaker’s expression that made the behavior disruptive.  In other words, a legislative body cannot label a speaker’s expression as disruptive merely because the body disagrees with what the speaker is saying.  In fact, the Brown Act specifically provides that “[t]he legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.”  Cal. Govt. Code Section 54954.3(c).

Regarding your recourse to address this issue, the district attorney or any interested individual may bring an action to prevent further violation of the Brown Act.  Govt. Code Section 54960(a).  Such an action may be commenced for “mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of this chapter by members of the legislative body of a local agency or to determine the applicability of this chapter to actions or threatened future action of the legislative body, or to determine whether any rule or action by the legislative body to penalize or otherwise discourage the expression of one or more of its members is valid or invalid.”  Govt. Code Section 54960(a).