Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Brown Act Compliance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City attorney tells ad hoc committee Brown Act requires public posting of reports; subcommittee drafts limited to two members

Ad Hoc Budget and Finance Advisory Committee (City of Los Angeles) · February 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City attorney and staff told the committee that Brown Act rules require agendas be posted 72 hours in advance and warned that substantive discussions by more than two members outside a noticed meeting could violate the law; staff outlined options for publishing draft reports to the council file.

Legal staff advised the Ad Hoc Budget and Finance Advisory Committee on Feb. 6 that state open‑meeting rules constrain how the group may share draft materials and hold off‑line discussions.

"The Brown Act requires the agenda to be published 72 hours prior to the meeting," said the city attorney's representative, explaining that reports intended for committee consideration are generally released before the agenda and uploaded to the council file so they are publicly available.

Staff explained procedures: subcommittees of no more than two members may finalize reports for public release; distribution of draft materials to the full committee before they are posted would require uploading them to the council file. The city clerk described a process for linking documents to the online agenda and recommended submitting final or draft reports with adequate lead time — 72 hours minimum and preferably five to 10 days — to allow review.

Why it matters: committee members had asked how to trade off early internal feedback on drafts with public‑record requirements. Counsel emphasized that serial communications among three or more members about substantive matters are likely a Brown Act violation and noted a narrow scheduling exception exists only for scheduling matters.

The committee asked the city attorney to check whether an advisory body of seven members would permit three‑member subcommittee communications; counsel said he would confirm and provide written advice. No formal change to procedures was voted at the meeting.