In Berkeley People’s Alliance v. City of Berkeley, published September 30, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 4 reversed the dismissal on demurrer of an action alleging violations of the Brown Act at three city council meetings. At each meeting, the mayor determined that the city council was unable to conduct business due to disruption from meeting attendees. The mayor stated at each meeting that the council could not restore order by removing the disruptive people. At each, the mayor did not order the meeting room cleared. Instead, the mayor recessed the meetings, and reconvened them in a different room. The room was too small to permit all nondisruptive members of the public to attend in person, but the press was allowed to attend, and the public was permitted to attend by video. The plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. They argued that the council had violated Government Code section 54957.9, which provides that where willful interruptions render the orderly conduct of a meeting unfeasible, and order cannot be restored by removing the disruptors, the body’s members may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. The trial court sustained demurrer to the complaint, finding that the statute does not require the council to first attempt to remove the disruptive individuals before determining that order could not be restored by such removal, and that the council complied by the statute by recessing and reconvening in another room.
The appellate court disagreed. It concluded that recessing a meeting and reconvening in another room is not clearing the room, because it is not ordering the meeting room be emptied of its occupants or obstructions. Further, the statute does not provide that a body may move the meeting location. Instead, the Act requires that legislative bodies give prior public notice of the location of their meetings. The complaint therefore states a claim for violation of section 54957.9.
Leave a Reply