Notes
on “Hybrid” Meetings
G Jackson/30 Oct 2022
The term “hybrid meeting” can translate
into several different formats. Some are easy to achieve, some not. Some comply
with the Brown Act (if AB361's exemptions expire), but most don't. The Brown
Act, absent the current AB361 exemptions, allows teleconferencing, but only if
it satisfies various very narrow requirements for who participates to what
degree from where.
It’s important to note at the outset an important
difference between
·
“hybrid” meetings, those where
participation can be either in person or remotely via some form of
teleconferencing, and
·
“broadcast” meetings, those where
participation requires physical presence but what happens is also broadcast for
the public to view (or listen to) remotely.
“Broadcast” meetings have some technology requirements,
but they’re much easier to implement that any kind of
“hybrid” meeting, and there’s no expectation that watchers will have the same
experience as participants. California code expressly permits broadcast
meetings (https://gregj.us/3U7QU3H).
Brown
Act/AB361
In general, the Brown Act requires that the official
part of meetings—where motions, votes, and other official acts take place—be in
locations physically accessible to the public. They can be in multiple
locations connected by teleconference, but each official location must be
accessible to the public, and notice of meetings must be posted physically at
each meeting location.
Even if it’s possible for “outsiders” to watch and
listen to the meeting remotely, or to submit written or oral comments, in general
it’s not acceptable for meeting participants—Trustees, committee members, and
so forth in our case—to attend officially via Zoom or similar
mechanisms from their homes, cars, or offices.
As currently enacted, AB361 (which replaced the
Governor’s earlier executive orders) exempts entities from those restrictive
Brown Act requirements. It permits use of Zoom, Teams, Webex, GoToMeeting, and
other such technologies, and for official attendance to be possible from online
locations not physically accessible to the public (such as their home computers
or personal phones), but only "during a declared state of emergency"
(the text is at https://gregj.us/3z2bTwO).
That’s what has enabled LJCPA and other entities subject to the Brown Act to
meet online during the pandemic.
The Governor has announced that the current state of
emergency will end Feb 28, 2023 (https://gregj.us/3sGC0FS). So far as I know,
he’s announced no plans for an executive order or legislation to extend the
existing exemptions. The principal implication of the Governor’s announcement
is that as of March 1 our Trustees must attend meetings in locations
physically accessible to the public to vote, and for their attendance to count
toward quorum.
However, it’s possible for us to allow public
attendance via some form of “hybrid meeting”. We need to consider what that might
mean and how we’d make it work.
Hybrid
Format A
The simplest "hybrid" meeting is one where
Small groups can meet easily under these conditions. The
Brown Act allows such meetings under certain conditions, notably that
·
eligible participants must have access
equivalent to that of physical participants (it’s far from clear what that
means), and
·
a quorum of the body--that'd be our
Trustees--are physically present at the publicly accessible physical meetings
places(s) in the body's jurisdiction (so a Trustee joining from Hawaii,
Oakland, or a distant campground wouldn't count toward quorum).
Hybrid
Format B
As the group or audience grows, things grow more
complicated. In that case generally all remote participants must be muted
unless the meeting host--whoever's at the computer in the meeting room--allows
them to unmute. People who join remotely can pose questions, make comments, or
request to speak via the Chat function or the "Raise Hand" function,
or alternatively by texting someone who's present in person (generally not
who's hosting, since the host is focused on managing the session). The remote
experience becomes increasingly different from the in-person one.
When a lot of people attend meetings in person, or
there are too many Trustees for one microphone, Format A becomes problematic:
the single camera and microphone (#1) can't capture all the in-person comments,
questions, discussion, or dynamics of the meeting, and so remote participants
don't have full access to the meeting. That presumably violates the Brown Act.
The Phil Donohue method (someone running around with a
mic, as used to happen at the Rec Center) doesn't solve this problem. So for larger meetings two additional requirements typically
ensue:
#5 typically requires a facility equipped with an audio
mixing board and the appropriate assortment of wired, wireless, and omindirectional microphones. #6 requires at least a
tracking camera or one or more cameras managed physically by operators.
Good modern conference spaces are built for hybrid
meetings (I have in mind modern boardrooms, although they typically don't
involve a participating audience, and larger facilities such as Qualcomm's
auditorium, where I've participated in huge meetings for college applicants and
their families, or—if I’m reading photos accurately—the City Council chambers).
So far as I know, there's no such facility in La Jolla,
except possibly at Conrad, LOT, or maybe LJHS. Quite likely UCSD has such
facilities, but they aren't physically in our jurisdiction and so would run
afoul of Brown Act requirements. So we either need to
invest in the necessary equipment and staffing to bring one of the local
meeting venues up to par, or "hybrid" meetings aren't going to work.