Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb 707 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County staff brief supervisors on SB 707 changes; board to adopt technology‑disruption policy by July deadline
Summary
County counsel and staff briefed the board on SB 707’s Brown Act updates — including mandated two‑way AV, ADA remote participation counting toward quorum in qualifying cases, and a required technology‑disruption policy — and the board directed staff to return with a draft policy and implementation plan.
County legal staff and administrators briefed the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on SB 707 on June 4, outlining statutory changes that require local bodies to adopt new practices for remote participation, meeting technology and public engagement.
County Counsel explained that SB 707, enacted in the previous legislative year, modernizes certain Brown Act requirements for eligible local legislative bodies. Key changes discussed included a requirement for two‑way audio‑visual platforms for eligible bodies, codified ADA accommodations allowing members with qualifying disabilities to participate remotely (and count toward quorum when ADA criteria are met), expanded just‑cause teleconferencing categories, and a newly required technology‑disruption policy that the board must adopt by July 1, 2026. County Counsel also reviewed the conditions under which a board may continue a meeting without broadcast after an hour of good‑faith troubleshooting and the required findings the chair must read into the record.
Anissa Basoco Villarreal, assistant deputy county administrator, presented a draft approach for the technology‑disruption policy and staff actions to improve inclusive public engagement, including language‑access tools, guidance for reasonable‑accommodation requests and steps IT and clerk staff will take to restore service during disruptions (for example: checking connections, moving the host to another device, escalating to vendors). Villarreal said the county will continue to provide meeting recordings and will post materials and guidance on the board’s web pages.
Supervisors raised implementation questions: several asked for a list of eligible subsidiary bodies that could be authorized to meet fully remotely; staff said a preliminary review identified roughly 25–30 advisory bodies as potentially eligible and that a final, vetted list will be shared before the policy is adopted. Supervisors also discussed piloting or phasing the rollout, ensuring staff coverage for remote‑only meetings, recording practices in the event of disruptions, and attendance and voting rules for boards and commissions.
Board direction: the supervisors asked staff to return with a recommended technology‑disruption policy, an initial eligible‑body list, and implementation steps for adoption before the fiscal year end or the statutory deadline where required. Counsel noted some administrative steps (webpages, outreach) have no statutory deadline, giving the county implementation flexibility.
Context and next steps: SB 707’s changes aim to modernize remote participation while balancing transparency and accessibility. The county will prepare a formal policy for board adoption and will consult with clerks, IT and affected advisory bodies on operational details.
