Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Rosa studies SB 707 changes to open‑meetings rules, seeks direction on remote participation and language access
Summary
City staff summarized key amendments in Senate Bill 707 to California’s Brown Act and recommended code and procedural updates affecting remote participation, social‑media conduct, reasonable accommodations, and translation/interpretation policies; Council directed staff to return with ordinance language and implementation options.
City staff presented a study session on recent amendments to the Brown Act under Senate Bill 707 and asked the Santa Rosa City Council for direction on several procedural changes that would affect how the city runs public meetings.
Teresa Striqui, the city attorney, told the Council that SB 707 adds new transparency requirements and optional pathways for remote participation. “This gives the council options but not the obligation,” she said, framing the changes as choices the Council can adopt in local procedures rather than mandates.
Ana Horta, director of community empowerment, outlined provisions that take effect on different dates: some measures are already operative and others become effective July 1, 2026. Staff highlighted several provisions that city policy will need to reflect: a prohibition on elected members reacting (likes, emojis, comments) to other members’ social‑media posts; rules that apply disruptive‑behavior authority to remote participants as well as in‑room attendees; and a formalized process for reasonable accommodations allowing remote participation for qualifying disabilities (with specified camera and audio requirements unless an accommodation allows otherwise).
Staff also explained a new optional pathway for certain narrowly defined subsidiary advisory bodies (for example, the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Water Advisory Commission as described by staff) to meet fully remotely, subject to staff‑identified facility and six‑month finding requirements if the Council chooses to permit it.
A major operational complication for Santa Rosa is language access. Staff said Spanish interpretation and translated agendas currently depend on internet‑based services; if those services fail during a meeting, the city’s current open‑government ordinance could require the meeting to stop. Staff presented two options: retain the stricter ordinance language (which could force suspension if interpretation fails) or adopt a narrowly tailored exception mirroring SB 707 that would let the Council decide, case‑by‑case after a one‑hour good‑faith effort to restore service, whether to proceed with specified agenda items without remote interpretation.
Councilmembers asked for clarification about required public locations for remote participation, how the accommodation process would be documented, and whether allowing certain subsidiary bodies to meet remotely would shift workload or priority for staffing and agenda placement. Several members emphasized the city’s commitment to inclusion and expressed concern about any option that might appear to exclude Spanish‑speaking residents.
Council consensus was to direct staff to return with ordinance language and recommended amendments to the Council manual that would: clarify reasonable‑accommodation procedures, require a one‑line summary for each speaker in the minutes, and update Council Policy 34 (citizen press policy). Staff said those amendments and procedural updates would be brought back for Council action.
