Page 20 - BrownActHandbook

d. Alternative Teleconferencing Provisions Specific to Los Angeles
Neighborhood Councils and Community College Student Bodies and Organizations. Through
January 1, 2026, certain eligible bodies, currently defined to include neighborhood councils of
charter cities with a population in excess of 3,000,000 (i.e., the City of Los Angeles), and
community college student body associations and student-run organizations, may use alternate
teleconferencing procedures as specified by statute. The umbrella legislative body (City Council
or Board of Trustees) must adopt an enabling resolution. The alternative procedures dispense
with the notice, agenda, and access requirements for traditional teleconferencing, but have
specific requirements to ensure public participation similar to remote meeting requirements. The
alternative procedures allow remote participants to count towards the in-person quorum if they
meet specific criteria.

(Government Code §§ 54953.8, 54953.9.)

5. Simultaneous or Serial Order Meetings.

When a legislative body also sits as the legislative body of another agency, for
example members of a city council also serving as members of a local public financing authority,
prior to holding a simultaneous or serial meeting of the subsequent legislative body, the clerk or
a member of the legislative body must orally announce before the meeting commences the
amount of extra compensation or stipend that any member receives from convening the
simultaneous or serial meeting, unless the amount of compensation is prescribed by statute.

(Government Code § 54952.3.)

6. Social Media.

In 2020, the Legislature amended the Brown Act to specifically address the use of
social media. Similar to the prohibition against using intermediaries to hold a meeting, a
majority of the members of a legislative body are prohibited from using a social media platform
to discuss agency business of a specific nature among themselves. Additionally, members of a
legislative body may not respond directly to any communication from another member on an
internet-based social media platform regarding a matter within their subject-matter jurisdiction.

On the other hand, social media may be used for answering questions or providing
information to the public as well as to solicit information from the public regarding a matter that
is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.

Language that would have allowed additional social media interactions between
members of a legislative body, such as commenting on another member’s post, re-tweeting or
forwarding, posting an “emoji,” or even clicking the “like” button did not make it into the new
legislation. Commenting in this manner could constitute discussion among members of the
legislative body.

The law does not appear to prohibit a member of a legislative body from
commenting on, forwarding or “liking” a post made by a member of the public, as long as those
comments do not become a discussion of agency business “of a specific nature” among a

8 2025 Brown Act Handbook LozanoSmith.com