Purpose and Scope of the Act

The Brown Act is codified at section 54950 et seq. The purpose of the Brown Act is to ensure the public's right to attend public meetings, facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decision making, and curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies. (Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Commission, (2004) 115 Ca1.App.4th 461.)

A legislative body of a local agency must conduct open, public meetings when making decisions. Gov’t Code Secs. 54952.2, 54953. “Further, . . . the Brown Act open meeting requirements encompass not only actions taken, but also factfinding meetings and deliberations leading up to those actions.” (Page v. MiraCosta Community College Dist. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 471, 502.)

In enacting the Brown Act, "the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. (Gov. Code Sec. 54950)

A major objective of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decision-making and curb misuse of democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies. (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Supervisors, (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 50.)

The Brown Act “is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally so as to accomplish its purpose.” (Shapiro v. Board of Directors, (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 170, 181 citing Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 862, 869).

To state a cause of action for violation of section 54960.1 of the Brown Act (Gov. Code Secs. 54950-54963), a petitioner must allege:

1. that a legislative body of a local agency violated one or more enumerated Brown Act statutes;
2. that there was "action taken" by the local legislative body in connection with the violation; and
3. that before commencing the action, plaintiff made a timely demand of the legislative body to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of the enumerated statutes, and the legislative body did not cure or correct the challenged action.

(Page v. MiraCosta Community College Dist. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 471, 500)

Definitions Under the Act

The Brown Act provides: “As used in this chapter, ‘local agency’ means a county, city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, town, school district, municipal corporation, district, political subdivision, or any board, commission or agency thereof, or other local public agency.” Gov’t Code § 54951. Similarly, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) provides: “‘Local agency’ includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county; school district; municipal corporation; district; political subdivision; or any board, commission or agency thereof; other local public agency; or entities that are legislative bodies of a local agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952.”

Communications and Legislative Actions

Gov. Code Sec. 54952.2 provides that a majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by the Brown Act, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.

No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary of final. (Gov. Code Sec. 54953(c)(1)) The legislative body of a local agency shall publically report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action. (Gov. Code Sec. 54953(c)(2)) The Brown Act comprehends information sessions at which a legislative body commits itself collective to a particular future decision concerning public business, but that is not the entire universe of gatherings subject to the Brown Act. (Frazer v. Dixon Unified School Dist. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 781, 796.) The term "deliberation" has been broadly construed to connote not only collective discussion, but the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision. (Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School Dist. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 231, 234.) Face to face contact is not necessary. (Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. members of Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95, 102, 104.)

Factual Requirements

“[C]ases have held that a violation of the Brown Act will not automatically invalidate an action taken by a local agency or legislative body. The facts must show, in addition, that there was prejudice caused by the alleged violation.” (Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 555–556, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 782; North Pacifica LLC v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1433, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 636.) “Even where a plaintiff has satisfied the threshold procedural requirements to set aside an agency's action, Brown Act violations will not necessarily 'invalidate a decision.... appellants must show prejudice.’” (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1410, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128; see also, Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 652, 670–671.)