|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
VIDEO and LEGISLATIVE BILL. Video from the City of Half Moon Bay Legislative Subcommittee meeting on 3/4/2021.
Legislative Counsel Digest for AB 339
Introduced by Assembly Members Lee and Cristina Garcia, January 28th, 2021.
An act to amend Sections 9027, 54953, 54954.2, 54954.3, 11122.5, 11123, 11125.7 of, and to add Sections 9027.1 and 9028.1 to, the Government Code, relating to state and local government.
AB 339, as introduced, Lee. State and local government: open meetings.
Existing law requires all meetings, as defined, of a house of the Legislature or a committee thereof to be open and public, and requires all persons to be permitted to attend the meetings, except as specified.
This bill would require all meetings, including gatherings using teleconference technology, to include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option that provides closed captioning services and requires both a call-in and an internet-based service option to be provided to the public.
The bill would require all meetings to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed legislation, as provided, and requires translation services to be provided for the 10 most-spoken languages, other than English, in California, and would require those persons commenting in a language other than English to have double the amount of time as those giving a comment in English, if time restrictions on public comment are utilized, except as specified.
The bill would require instructions on how to attend the meeting to be posted at the time notice of the meeting is publicized, as specified.
Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate.
This bill would require all meetings to include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option that provides closed captioning services and requires both a call-in and an internet-based service option to be provided to the public. The bill would require, even in the case of a declared state or local emergency, teleconferenced meetings to include an in-person public comment opportunity. The bill would require all meetings to provide the public with an opportunity to address the legislative body remotely via call-in or internet-based service, as provided, and would require instructions on how to attend the meeting to be posted at the time notice of the meeting is publicized, as specified. The bill would also require the legislative bodies of the local agency to employ a sufficient amount of qualified bilingual persons to provide translation during the meeting in the language of a non-English-speaking person, in jurisdictions which govern a substantial number of non-English-speaking people, as defined.
Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The Act requires at least one member of the state body to be physically present at the location specified in the notice of the meeting.
This bill would require all meetings, as defined, to include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option [like Zoom] that provides closed captioning services and requires both a call-in and an internet-based service option to be provided to the public.
The bill would require instructions on how to attend the meeting via call-in or internet-based service to be posted online along with the meeting agenda in an easily accessible location at least 72 hours before all regular meetings and at least 24 hours before all special meetings. The bill would require all meetings to provide the public with an opportunity to address the legislative body remotely via call-in or internet-based service, as provided, and would require those persons commenting in a language other than English to have double the amount of time as those giving a comment in English, if time restrictions on public comment are utilized, except as specified.
Existing law, the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, requires any materials explaining services available to the public to be translated into any non-English language spoken by a substantial number of the public, as defined, served by the agency, and requires every state and local agency serving a substantial number of non-English-speaking people, as defined, to employ a sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public contact positions or as interpreters to ensure provision of information and services in the language of the non-English-speaking person.
This bill would require legislative bodies of local agencies, and state bodies, as defined, to translate agendas and instructions for accessing the meeting to be translated into all languages for which 5% of the population in the area governed by the local agency, or state body’s jurisdiction, are speakers.
By imposing new duties on local governments with respect to meetings, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: yes Â
The Full Legislative Text and Draft
City Council of Half Moon Bay Meets ~ 1st and 3rd Tuesdays at 7:00pm
HMB City Council Agendas and Zoom Links
HMB City Calendar
The New Now ~ Virtual Remote Public Agency Meetings
Watch streaming, or the Pacifica Coast TV video, that we will post. Stay tuned!
The meeting will be held at the Adcock Community Center for any members of the public who wish to speak in person, though we do encourage all members to participate remotely.
The meeting will be:
- streamed live on Comcast Channel 27 and Pacific Coast TV website
- the City’s website online (via Granicus)
- and on Facebook Live
- one in English (City of Half Moon Bay FB Page)
- one in Spanish (City of Half Moon Bay Recreation FB Page)
- Recorded by Pacific Coast TV (PCTV)
Members or the public are welcome to submit comments (in accordance with the three-minute per speaker limit) via email
to [email protected] prior to or during the meeting, via Facebook live during the meeting, and via two phone lines during the meet
ing – (650) 477-4963 (English) and (650) 445-3090 (Spanish).
ing – (650) 477-4963 (English) and (650) 445-3090 (Spanish).The City Clerk will read all comments into the record.
HMB City Council Agendas and Zoom Links
HMB City Calendar
Leave messages with the Clerk’s Department at 650-726-8250
-
-
Debbie Ruddock
Vice MayorPhone: 650-726 -
Joaquin Jimenez
Council MemberPhone: 650-726-8250 (leave message with Clerk’s office)
-
The City Council of Half Moon Bay
Half Moon Bay City Council Subcommittees
- CSFA Grant Selection
- Education
- Emergency Preparedness
- Finance
- Human Resources
- Legislative Affairs
- Mobility
Half Moon Bay City Council Strategic Plan
Author: Coastside Buzz
Me
Correction to my previous comment. The limit would be areas with more than *250,000* people, not 25,000. That change is not yet part of the bill, but has been discussed in committee and will very likely be made. The bill also has some other wording that I think is not a good thing. It allows government bodies to require registration to comment, and that registration can require a name and phone number (some local bodies already require a name). The Brown Act as it stands without the changes in AB 339 requires that public comment be able to made anonymously, and the change in AB 339 would remove that.