(b) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use video teleconferencing for the benefit of the public or the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law.

(2) The use of video teleconferencing, as authorized by this chapter, shall be limited to the receipt of public comment or testimony by the legislative body and to deliberations of the legislative body.

(3) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use video teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all video teleconference locations and adopt reasonable regulations to adequately protect the statutory or constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency.

(4) The term "video teleconference" shall mean a system which provides for both audio and visual participation between all members of the legislative body and the public attending a meeting or hearing at any video teleconference location.

(c) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final. Leg. H. Amended Stats 1988 ch 399 § 1; Stats 1993 ch 1136 § 4; Stats 1993 ch 1137 § 4; Stats 1994 ch 32 § 4.

Authority on § 54953:

Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1992) 13 Cal.App.4th 298; Yoffie v. Marin Hospital Dist. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 743; Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School Dist. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 231; Greer v. Board of Education (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 98; Edgar v. Oakland Museum Advisory Com. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 73; see also Adler v. City Council (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 763, Cozzolino v. City of Fontana (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 608; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 (1990): The Brown Act compels public agencies to conduct their business openly. All meetings of a local agency's legislative body "shall be open and public" except as otherwise provided in the Brown Act.

Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95: "Meeting" includes informal sessions at which a legislative body commits itself collectively to a particular future decision concerning public business. A quorum of members of a legislative body who intend to unite in agreement to agree through a series of telephone conversations conducted through an intermediary such as a legislative body legal counsel violates the Brown Act. Participation by a majority of the legislative body of a redevelopment agency in a series of one-to-one nonpublic and unnoticed telephone conversations with the agency's attorney for the commonly agreed purpose of collectively deciding to approve the transfer of ownership in redevelopment project property constitutes a meeting at which action was taken in violation of the Brown Act.

San Diego Union v. City Council (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 947; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 (1990): The Brown Act open meeting requirements must be interpreted liberally in favor of openness, and the closed session exception relating to personnel in § 54957 must be construed narrowly.

Joiner v. City of Sebastopol (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 799: A proposed meeting of an advisory committee consisting of two members of a city council and two member's of the city's planning commission to interview applicants for vacancy on commission and make a joint recommendation to the council regarding appointment of a commissioner is subject to the Brown Act and must be open and public.

Wilson v. San Francisco Mun. Ry. (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 870: A hearing before a municipal railway general manager for a railway employee under a union agreement grievance procedure does not constitute a "meeting" of a "legislative body" of a local agency so as to require the hearing to be open and public. A single individual who functions by him or herself cannot be deemed a "legislative body."

Carlson v. Paradise Unified Sch. Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196; Phillips v. Seely (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 104: A long and vigorous battle has been fought against secrecy in government. The present rule is that local governing bodies, elected by the people, exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business, and thus their deliberations should be conducted openly and with due notice subject to a few exceptions.

Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41: The Brown Act was violated by an Elks Club luncheon gathering of five county supervisors, county counsel, county executive, county director of welfare and several members of a local labor council who discussed a public employee strike against county and the county's effort to enforce an injunction connected to the strike. Deliberation and action are dual components of the collective decision-making process and the meeting concept cannot be split off and confined to one component. The term "meeting" extends to informal sessions or conferences of members of legislative bodies designed for discussion of public business.

Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 51: § 54953 is the central provision of the Brown Act.

58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 839 (1975): An exception to the Brown Act that is implied by law provides that a county board of supervisors may attend the closed session of the county grand jury held in exercise of the grand jury's investigatory powers for the purpose of obtaining information from members of the board regarding matter under investigation. But meetings with a board of supervisors held in exercise of a grand jury's reporting function are subject to the Brown Act closed meeting provisions and must be open.

57 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 189 (1974): When county boards of education are deciding appeals from the decisions of local district boards concerning the refusal to enter into an interdistrict attendance agreement, the Brown Act open meeting exemptions do not apply even though such boards may be acting in a quasi-judicial manner. Accordingly, public meetings held under the Brown Act must be held by such governing bodies when taking action or deliberating with regard to interdistrict attendance agreements.

43 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 37 (1964): Luncheon meetings by a majority of one or more city councils with civic organizations to discuss municipal problems and items of importance such as the location of school facilities, airport facilities, water supply, sewage disposal, and beach erosion are subject to the Brown Act open meeting requirements. Accordingly, the public is entitled to notice of and right to attend such meetings. Mere social attendance by a majority of the members of a local agency governing body does not trigger the open meeting requirements.

42 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 61 (1963): Subject to limited exceptions, the Brown Act open meeting requirements apply to briefing sessions of a city council with the city manager, city attorney, and planning director which take place shortly prior to scheduled meetings. The public has a right to notice of and attendance at such meetings irrespective of whether individual members of the council intend or do not intend to take "action" at such gatherings.

(See also § 54952.2; see §§ 54956.7-54957, 54957.6, 54957.8, and 54962 for exceptions to Brown Act open meeting requirement.)