Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney gives Brown Act refresher, warns about "hub-and-spoke" and social media limits
Summary
Assistant City Attorney Christian Petrangelo told the Fairfield Planning Commission that the Brown Act broadly prohibits majority deliberations outside public meetings, described "hub-and-spoke" and serial communications as common pitfalls, and cautioned commissioners about social-media interactions under AB 992 and teleconferencing rules consolidated by SB 707.
Assistant City Attorney Christian Petrangelo gave a detailed Brown Act refresher to the Fairfield Planning Commission on July 22, outlining what constitutes a meeting, common pitfalls and recent statutory changes.
"The Brown Act states that all meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency," Petrangelo told commissioners. He stressed that the statute applies to subordinate boards such as the planning commission and identified four elements that define a "meeting," noting that simply having a majority in one place and exchanging views on agency business can amount to a violation.
Petrangelo described two common forms of prohibited serial communications: "hub-and-spoke," in which one person conveys views to multiple members, and a "chain" in which views pass from member to member. He warned that either can produce improper deliberation and that the city must avoid situations where staff or outside actors act as conduits for majority coordination.
He also highlighted limits on social-media interaction that can create an issue under recent law: "AB 992 set down these rules where, essentially 2 members of a legislative body are prohibited from using social media platform to discuss agency business," including liking, reacting or sharing posts that express viewpoints on specific legislative matters.
Petrangelo reviewed teleconferencing rules consolidated under SB 707, noting a "just cause" exception for remote participation that applies to certain circumstances (for example, health-related reasons) and that there are stricter procedures for fully remote teleconference meetings. He reminded commissioners about limited exceptions for adding items to an agenda at a regular meeting and the right of the public to speak, and he described translator and accommodation requirements that can affect hearing time for speakers using a translator.
On quasi-judicial proceedings, Petrangelo discussed fair-process concerns, bias and recusal: members with a disqualifying personal animus or prior specific prejudicial statements should consider recusal. He advised commissioners to seek legal advice early if bias concerns arise so decisions are not later invalidated in litigation.
The presentation closed with a question-and-answer period in which commissioners sought clarification about what counts as "deliberation," when online statements could lead to recusal, and how applicants could raise impartiality concerns; Petrangelo said he would follow up with specific citations as needed.
Petrangelos presentation repeatedly referenced the California Government Code and named the state bills AB 992 and SB 707 that affect social media and teleconferencing rules; commissioners asked procedural clarifying questions but raised no formal challenges to the guidance.
