Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board counsel reviews Bagley‑Keene rules and warns against serial meetings
Summary
Legal counsel Michael Knoitz briefed the Physical Therapy Board of California on the Bagley‑Keene Open Meetings Act, stressing 10‑day agenda notice, allowed closed‑session topics, serial‑meeting prohibitions and new hybrid/teleconference rules adopted after the pandemic.
Michael Knoitz, the board’s legal counsel, opened the Board’s training by saying the purpose of Bagley‑Keene is “to promote openness or transparency in state decision making, to require a state body to do business in public,” and to provide the public adequate notice and comment opportunities.
Knoitz walked the board through the Act’s central requirements: agendas must be posted at least 10 calendar days before a meeting; substantive items generally cannot be added after that period except for narrowly defined emergency circumstances; and public comment must be allowed before action is taken. He repeated his practical advice that boards should “err on the side of disclosure” and allow rather than limit public comment to reduce legal risk.
The counsel described the narrow categories that may be taken in closed session for licensing boards: disciplinary matters under the Administrative Procedure Act (including proposed decisions, interim suspensions and petitions), pending litigation (which must be listed by case name and court), and the evaluation, appointment or dismissal of an executive officer. He stressed there is a practical tension between confidentiality and the requirement that a notetaker be present for closed sessions, noting that human resources representatives or counsel commonly serve that role.
Knoitz warned against serial meetings—sequential communications among three or more members that amount to a meeting without public notice—and gave concrete examples (reply‑all email threads or a chain of phone calls) that can invalidate decisions. He also reviewed the post‑pandemic landscape for remote participation: separate procedures now exist for in‑person, traditional teleconference, hybrid, and advisory‑body virtual meetings; each type has different notice, quorum, and public‑access rules, including the limited circumstances under which a remote member can count toward quorum (for example, a documented disability).
Board members asked clarifying questions about practice—how to handle remote cameras and moderators for Webex public comment—and Knoitz recommended that staff coordinate with legal counsel and the president whenever a hybrid option is considered. He concluded by reminding the board that Office of Administrative Law staff and courts will review meeting minutes, recordings and regulatory records when evaluating regulations or litigation, and that preserving a clear public record is essential.
