City attorney gives Gardena planning commissioners Brown Act refresher; training covers recusals, social media and serial meetings

Rosemary, an attorney from the City Attorney’s Office, gave a Brown Act refresher to the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission and answered commissioners’ questions about recusal, communications among commissioners, social media and public comment rules.

“Brown Act requires that all meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open in public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency except as otherwise provided by law,” Rosemary told the commission. She described what constitutes a meeting, how a quorum is calculated, and how the Brown Act applies to commissions, committees and ad hoc groups.

Key points covered in the training and subsequent Q&A included:

- Open meetings and notice: Regular meeting agendas must be published at least 72 hours before the meeting; special meeting notices require at least 24 hours. Items not on the agenda generally may not be discussed or acted on at the meeting.

- Public comment limits and format: The commission’s standard time limit for public comment is three minutes per speaker; time limits may be reduced if many speakers sign up. Rosemary reiterated the public’s right to address the commission in real time and described staff procedures for follow-up when speakers choose not to provide contact information.

- Serial meetings and communications: Rosemary warned that serial communications that produce a consensus (for example, a daisy chain or hub-and-spoke pattern) are prohibited. She summarized common examples — commissioner A speaks to B, B speaks to C until a majority is reached — and said staff can meet one-on-one with commissioners for factual briefings but must not attempt to aggregate or convey commissioners’ positions.

- Social media: Rosemary described recent updates to Brown Act guidance covering social media and said commissioners should not “like,” repost or comment on social-media posts that concern projects or matters likely to come before the commission, calling that “a hard no.”

- Conflicts of interest and recusal: She walked commissioners through a four-step conflict analysis (foreseeable financial effect, materiality, distinction from the general public, and exceptions) and described common thresholds stated in the training: business ownership or real property interests commonly trigger scrutiny when the economic interest is $2,000 or more; sources of income or gifts valued at $500 or more over the prior 12 months may also create disqualifying interests under the Fair Political Practices Commission rules. Rosemary advised that commissioners disclose the nature of a conflict on the dais and, if disqualified, leave the meeting room for a clean break.

Commissioners asked several practical questions, including whether two commissioners may attend the same community meeting (yes; two does not constitute a quorum) and how to handle situations where three commissioners attend a neighborhood meeting (three would generally constitute a majority and, if the topic falls within the commission’s jurisdiction, could require a noticed meeting so the public may attend). Rosemary and staff recommended notifying department leadership when a majority plans to attend an outside meeting so staff can determine whether notice or other steps are required.

The training closed with staff offering ongoing assistance and reminders that best practice is to avoid expressing a voting inclination on any project before hearing the full public hearing presentation.

Commissioners present for the training included Chair Reitschher, Vice Chair Khan and Commissioner Langley; Commissioners Daryl Henderson and Steve Sherman were noted as excused/absent.