People disrupted three meetings of the Berkeley City Council. The mayor determined that the disruptions made it impossible to continue business. The mayor stated that order could not be restored by removing the people because of the level of the disruption and the number of people involved. The mayor recessed the meetings and reconvened them in a smaller nearby room. Members of the press were allowed to attend in person, but the public could only observe by video. The City Council did not return to the original meeting room on these three occasions.
The Berkeley People’s Alliance (Alliance), a civic group, sued the City for violating the Brown Act’s open-meeting requirements. The Alliance argued that the City violated the Act by: 1) failing to attempt to remove those who were interrupting the meetings before determining that order could not be restored; and 2) recessing the meetings and moving to a different room rather than ordering the meeting room cleared and continuing in session in the original room pursuant to Government Code section 54957.9.
The City demurred, alleging that the Brown Act did not require those measures. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer, finding that section 54957.9 did not require the City Council to first attempt to remove disruptive individuals before determining that order could not be restored. The court also concluded that the City Council complied with the statute by recessing and reconvening the meetings in a different room with the press present.
The Alliance appealed. Its primary argument on appeal was that the City Council violated section 54957.9 by recessing the meetings and reconvening them in a different room rather than ordering the original meeting room cleared.
The California Court of Appeal noted the Brown Act’s fundamental purpose is to ensure that the people’s business is conducted openly and that members of the public can directly observe and participate in local government decision-making. Exceptions allowing closed sessions or restricted access are to be construed narrowly.
Section 54957.9 provides one such limited exception to the open meeting requirement if a group willfully interrupts a meeting and the order “cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting.” In that case, “the legislative body …may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session.”
The Court of Appeal found that the phrase “order the meeting room cleared” meant that the City Council could empty the same room of its occupants, but not move the meeting elsewhere. The Court reasoned that the Legislature could have authorized relocation if it intended to, but it had not.
The Court emphasized that other sections of the Brown Act, such as section 54954, allow relocation if it is unsafe to meet in the designated location because of fire, flood, or other emergencies. Section 54957.9 contains no similar authorization to relocate.
The Court also rejected the City’s argument that its approach promoted safety and efficiency. The justices noted that the Brown Act’s primary goal is transparency, and public agencies may not prioritize convenience or control over public access unless explicitly permitted by statute.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s dismissal, ruling that the Alliance adequately stated a claim for violation of the Brown Act.
Berkeley People’s Alliance v. City of Berkeley, 114 Cal. App. 5th 984 (2025).