Seth Rosenblatt
Both lauded and maligned—and perhaps occasionally violated—the Brown Act has been an integral part of California politics for over half a century. TheRalph M. Brown Act, often referred to as California’s “open meetings law,” was first passed in 1953 to ensure that work of publicly-elected bodies was done openly and transparently. It also remains one of the most confusing pieces of legislation, particularly for “amateur” politicians such as school board members, because of its non-obvious provisions and multiple exemptions.
The California School Boards Association’s annual conference every year has multiple sessions devoted to explaining the Brown Act to school board members (and CSBA publishes a 63 page book to explain the law), but even attorneys specializing in the area disagree on the application of some of the law’s provisions, particularly in the modern era.
The intent of the law is clear and largely not in dispute: Public bodies should not deliberate behind closed doors but rather allow the public to witness their “thinking process” in how they come to decisions. The law centers on provisions stating that a majority of the members of any elected body must deliberate in public with an agenda that is posted and available publicly in advance of such meeting. There are many specific requirements and some exceptions (including for matters such as litigation, collective bargaining, and student