Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Brown Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City clerk outlines SB77 changes to Brown Act; Emeryville council backs central posting and declines remote designation for advisory bodies
Summary
At a May 5, 2026 study session, City Clerk April Fein reviewed SB77 amendments to California's Brown Act, and the Emeryville City Council directed staff to adopt a technology‑disruption policy and a single centralized agenda posting location while declining to opt subsidiary advisory bodies into SB77's 'eligible' remote‑participation designation because of staff safety and cost concerns.
April Fein, Emeryville city clerk, gave the council a high‑level overview of SB77 on May 5, saying SB77 “was a major amendment to the Brown Act” that restructures how local legislative bodies must offer remote participation and public access.
SB77 requires eligible legislative bodies to provide two‑way telephonic or audiovisual remote attendance, automatic captioning, and certain ADA accommodations that can count toward quorum. Fein told the council that the city qualifies as an eligible body under the bill’s population thresholds for Alameda County and that the council will be required to adopt a technology‑disruption policy that describes recess/reconvene procedures should internet or phone service fail.
Why it mattered: SB77 changes routine operating rules for meetings by formalizing remote‑access requirements, adding new categories of legislative bodies, and imposing additional transparency obligations such as a dedicated public‑meetings web page and translated agendas when thresholds are met. Fein said staff recommends placing the disruption‑policy text as Appendix A in the council’s rules of procedure so it can be updated or sunsetted without rewriting the full rules.
Council questions focused on operational and safety tradeoffs. Members asked whether advisory or subsidiary bodies (commissions, committees) qualify as “eligible subsidiary bodies,” how remote participation would be accommodated for members with disabilities, and whether the city could pilot remote meetings for particular advisory groups. Fein responded that the bill defines eligible subsidiary bodies narrowly (advisory‑only bodies that do not take final action and do not have primary oversight of elections, budgets, police oversight, libraries, or taxes) and that the law requires specific findings and procedural steps if advisory bodies meet remotely.
Police Chief Jennings and staff briefed members about operational considerations: remote participation would require a staffed physical location that raises staff‑safety questions for lone employees; it could increase costs because advisory bodies currently use less secure meeting technology than the council (Teams vs. the city’s Zoom webinar license); and Alameda County city clerks polled earlier in the year indicated few peers are opting subsidiary bodies into the eligible‑body status.
On two action items staff asked for direction: whether the council favors allowing remote participation for eligible subsidiary bodies, and whether the council supports amending the municipal code to designate one centralized posting location at Civic Center. After discussion, the council provided direction consistent with staff recommendations: do not opt subsidiary bodies into the eligible‑body designation at this time, and direct staff to amend the municipal code to identify a single centralized agenda posting location while continuing to provide a large‑print agenda binder to community locations (for example, the senior center).
Next steps: staff plans a first reading of the municipal code amendment at the May 19 council meeting and a second reading on June 2, with the amended rules of procedure and the technology‑disruption policy to follow. Fein said the SB77 implementation requirements start July 7, 2026. The council did not take any final ordinance action at the May 5 study session.
Source: presentation and Q&A at the May 5 study session; direct remarks by April Fein (City Clerk) and staff.
