Carmel-by-the-Sea commission receives training on Brown Act and Public Records Act; social media, teleconferencing, and personal-device rules highlighted

Tom Brown, an attorney with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, told the Community Activities Commission on Aug. 7 that California’s open‑meeting law "the Brown Act says that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency must be open in public." He led a training session also covering the California Public Records Act, and answered questions about teleconferencing rules, social media use by officials and how records on private devices can be subject to disclosure.

Brown told commissioners the Brown Act requires posted agendas and public comment rights for regular meetings, and described timeline requirements: "regular meetings" require 72 hours’ notice, special meetings 24 hours, and emergency meetings may be noticed as little as one hour for narrowly defined emergencies. He said public‑comment time limits are permissible so long as they apply equally to all speakers.

The training emphasized limits on gatherings and communications that can constitute a meeting. Brown warned against "serial meetings," including daisy‑chain and hub‑and‑spoke communications, and said electronic exchanges that involve a majority can violate the Brown Act. He outlined teleconferencing requirements under the traditional rules — including posting the remote location in the agenda and making that remote location open to the public — and described the narrower COVID‑era modifications that allow greater remote participation but subject them to specific conditions.

Brown noted new statutory restrictions on social media: "You cannot respond directly to any communication posted or shared by another member regarding agency business on any Internet‑based social media platform," and cautioned that a direct response can include an emoji or a "like." He advised members who are asked informally for their positions to say, "I have real concerns about this, but I haven't made up my mind yet," to avoid appearing to prejudge matters that will come before them in a public hearing.

On public records, Brown summarized the San Jose decision’s practical effect: records on personal accounts or devices may be public if they "relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the public's business." He explained the practical test — content, context, purpose, audience and whether the communication occurred in the course and scope of public duties — and said not every personal message is a public record.

Brown reviewed CPRA operational rules: any person may make a request; agencies must determine within 10 calendar days whether requested records are disclosable and may extend that initial response in limited circumstances; and agencies cannot verbally deny requests — written denials must cite the exemption relied on and name the official responsible. He described common exemptions (preliminary drafts not ordinarily retained, pending litigation materials while litigation is active, personnel information when disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy, certain law‑enforcement files, and attorney‑client privileged materials) and warned that settlement confidentiality clauses attempting to keep settlement terms secret are void against the public‑records requirement.

In a brief question session, a chamber attendee asked how the training recording would be published; Nova, the city clerk, said the recording "is gonna be available on the city's YouTube page, later today or tomorrow." A second attendee asked what happens if council members do not turn over records held on private devices; Brown said many cities now require certification of searches and production from members and that concealing responsive records could expose officials and the agency to sanctions, though enforcement and remedies depend on the facts and, in some cases, litigation.

Brown closed by urging commissioners to coordinate with the city clerk and city attorney on teleconferencing, records searches and difficult CPRA requests, and to treat time‑limits and notice requirements as mandatory. The commission was told the meeting recording would be posted to the city’s YouTube channel later the same day or the next day.