Attorney reviews Brown Act and AB 1992 limits on council social media; advises cautious approach

Doug Dwight of White Brenner (city legal counsel) briefed the council on Brown Act rules and AB 1992, focusing on social media best practices and the risk of creating a serial meeting when council members respond to one another on public platforms.

Dwight said the Brown Act (codified beginning at Government Code section 54950) requires public meetings for deliberations and prohibits serial meetings that, taken together, involve a quorum. He described common serial‑meeting patterns such as daisy chains or hub‑and‑spoke conversations and said those patterns can occur on social media as readily as in person. "You can find [the Brown Act] in the government code starting in, 54 9 50," he said.

Dwight summarized AB 1992, which amended the Brown Act to address online platforms and said the statute currently prevents a member of a legislative body from directly replying to another member’s social media post about agency business — including comments, likes or emoji reactions — because those interactions can amount to deliberation. He recommended practical measures: avoid private group chats about city business, keep personal accounts and official communications separate, do not comment on other council members’ social‑media posts about city matters, and consider a written social‑media policy for the city. He also said social‑media posts about city business are public records and may be subject to public‑records requests.

Council members asked questions about acceptable posting practices (for example, posting event notices and sharing public information is allowed) and about reasonable approaches to stay engaged with constituents while avoiding violations. Dwight recommended training for council and staff and suggested adding social‑media guidance to the council handbook.

No formal council action was taken; the presentation served as counsel and staff training.