See the 2024 Impact Report >>

Search Results

Clear Results
Category
Topic
Select Year

Showing 411 - 420 of 1857 results

    Showing results for government bodies must comply brown act 54951 act90 54951 act 54951 act90 54951 54951 54951

  • Asked and Answered

    Brown Act

    Board of Directors Closed Session

    […] closed session, I was told that the Board of Directors were considered personnel and as so covered under the personnel matters exception in the Davis-Sterling Open Meeting Act. I read a pamphlet from the California Attorney General's office that was very clear that board members are not considered personnel under the Bagley-Keene Act. Does […]

    June 14, 2009

  • Asked and Answered

    Brown Act

    Brown Act rules for scheduling a meeting

    […] discussions are not a "meeting" for the purposes of the Brown Act. 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.

    October 18, 2013

  • Asked and Answered

    Brown Act

    Obligation to stated agenda

    Labor law requires that in order to negotiate a new contract the union's proposals must be presented in a public meeting. The School District agendized the sunshining of a teamsters union contract proposal but did not have the proposal available at the meeting or place the proposal on its website.  It only showed on […]

    June 14, 2009

  • Asked and Answered

    CPRA School Records

    Accessing university’s decision making on promotions and tenure

    UCLA is subject to California's open records law, the Public Records Act, Government Code § 6250 et seq. Under the Act, records that are "prepared, owned, used, or retained" by a public agency are presumptively subject to disclosure, unless some exemption applies.  Gov't Code § 6252(e).  This would include, presumptively, records related to a […]

    June 9, 2015

  • Asked and Answered

    Brown Act

    Is It Legal to Exclude the Public From a Regularly Scheduled Public Meeting?

    […] present. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner 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. No attorney-client relationship has been formed by way of this response.

    January 20, 2021

  • Latest News

    Press Release

    FAC, ACLU Sue City of Fresno for Open Meetings Law Violation

    […] negotiated the city’s annual budget behind closed doors, violating California’s law on open public meetings and depriving the people of their fundamental right to transparency in local government. The City’s proposed budget is then typically rubber-stamped by the City Council. For example, during Fresno’s Fiscal Year 2024 budget process, the Budget Committee — composed […]

    November 15, 2023

  • Latest News

    Blog

    SCOTUS is about to bring down hammer on public sector unions. That will be good for democracy, not so good for freedom of speech.

    […] overtly political activities, like lobbying and campaign contributions. The public employees in the Friedrich case---teachers in Los Angeles public schools---argue that  collective bargaining between unions and the government is no less political than campaign contributions or lobbying. When public sector unions bargain with a state or local government agency over pensions, health insurance, average […]

    January 20, 2016

  • Latest News

    Cases Press Release

    Key settlement in FAC case breaks new ground in public access to officials’ emails

    July 24, 2012—The First Amendment Coalition is pleased to announce a landmark settlement in a case involving public access to government email messages. The agreement with the city of Auburn, California requires the city to save emails for at least two years–replacing a prior policy of deleting most emails after 30 days. The agreement, […]

    July 25, 2012