City attorney warns committee off‑meeting discussions can violate Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance; tours must be agendized
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Deputy City Attorney Ken Ryu advised the Citizens GO Bond Oversight Committee that committee members must avoid discussing committee business outside properly agendized public meetings, cautioned against serial 'seriatim' communications and said appointing two liaisons can create a policy body that requires public notice; facility tours are allowed if publicly noticed.
Deputy City Attorney Ken Ryu told the Citizens General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee on Dec. 8 that California open‑meeting rules limit committee member communications outside of agendized, publicly noticed meetings.
"Both the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance prohibit committee members from discussing committee or city business ... outside of a properly agendized publicly noticed public meeting," Ryu said, advising members to bring issues to the Controller’s Office for agenda placement rather than discuss them offline.
Ryu warned of ‘‘seriatim’’ communications — a chain of one‑on‑one conversations that can function as an unofficial quorum — and urged members to avoid them. He explained the practical rule the city uses for liaisons: appointing a single liaison to a program is acceptable, but appointing two or more individuals to act together can constitute a policy body that must be agendized and opened to public notice and comment. "If you appoint 2 people, however, then you have a policy body," Ryu said, and a policy body must follow public‑meeting procedures.
On facility tours, Ryu and staff said tours are permissible but must be publicly noticed if multiple committee members participate. Staff noted the committee could agendize a tour, open the tour to the public and arrange logistics so several members can attend without violating open‑meeting rules.
Committee members asked for written clarification; Ryu offered to circulate relevant guidance and earlier email documentation to the committee for review. The legal guidance prompted members to discuss practical onboarding and continuity questions — for example, how one liaison maintains continuity when terms end — and staff agreed to return with written materials and to agendize tours if the committee requests them.
No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting; the legal advice was offered as guidance for committee administration and compliance with state and local open‑meeting requirements.