"DISORDERLY CONDUCT": sb1100 and in-person meetings
CAN LOS ANGELES Neighborhood Councils effectively utilize SB1100 to remove disorderly members of the public from in-person meetings? Well.... it's tricky.
disclaimer: this is not professional legal advice. it's merely the opinion of the writer based on NC experience.
Italicized text from the League of California Cities website (8/24/22):
A bill designed to address disruptions at public local government meetings was recently signed into law. Authored by Sen. Dave Cortese, SB 1100 outlines a new process in which the presiding member of a legislative body conducting a meeting, or their designee, may remove an individual for disrupting the meeting.
SB 1100 prescribes the following process for removal:
(1) Warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and their failure to cease their behavior may result in removal.
(2) Remove the individual if they do not "promptly" cease their disruptive behavior.
While SB 1100 puts in statute what the presiding officer or their designee of a Brown Act legislative body can do to reduce disruptions in meetings, existing statutory and case law already specifies other avenues for addressing public meeting disruptions.
Under existing law, and as interpreted by the courts, a city council may adopt rules governing the conduct of their public meetings and allowing for the removal of a person who makes slanderous, profane, or threatening remarks or engages in any other disorderly conduct that disrupts the meeting (Government Code section 36813; See also White v. City of Norwalk). If there is no disruption, there cannot be a removal (Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa).
Courts have also upheld the ability of local governments to remove a member of the public from a meeting if their conduct and speech disrupt the orderly process of the meeting (Penal Code section 403; Government Code section 54957.9; See also Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board).
Additionally, Government Code section 54954.3(b)(1) allows a legislative body to adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that members of the public have the opportunity to address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public. However, the legislative body may not prohibit public criticism of its policies, procedures, programs, or services.
City officials and their attorneys may want to consider — should a situation call for it — whether they want to remove disruptive individuals pursuant to a rule adopted under existing statutory and case law or follow the new SB 1100 process.1
So, what does this mean for Neighborhood Council meetings? Unfortunately, both the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) and the City Attorney have been relatively silent on the matter, considering the recent urgency to get Boards up-to-speed on in-person meetings. Yet, this is STATE LAW, which supersedes any existing municipal code. So the question persists: CAN Neighborhood Councils effectively utilize SB1100 to remove disorderly members of the public from in-person meetings?
Well.... it's tricky.
The key term here is "disorderly". What is disorderly? The City Council and President Paul Krekorian enjoys the benefit of Rule 12 to remove aggressive citizens from disrupting proceedings (the 'PMK" if it were a WWE finishing move). In NC by-laws, however, few such rules exist, which leaves most NCs with the Brown Act to fall back upon. The Brown Act (as noted in the CalCities article) is rather vague in addressing the concern.
To best protect the NC from tactics designed to disrupt "the orderly process of meetings", the FIRST THING a Neighborhood Council MUST do is make certain the attending public is very aware of the rules and regulations of which they must adhere. Handouts prior to the start of the meeting, a foam sign at the entrance, the Chair discussing the regulations... most likely all of the above. This isn't about the opinion of what the Chair might find disorderly against the opinion of what that member of the public finds disorderly -- if the ORDER of the meeting is clear.
The SECOND THING the Chair of an NC must do is seek advice from the City Attorney PRIOR to the in-person Board meeting. Ultimately, any legal move against the Neighborhood Council is a move against the City. The rule of thumb in accordance with SB1100 is, first and foremost, a warning. The City Council, before Rule 12 is administered, usually showers the participant with an abundance of warnings from both the President and the City Attorney. Then, after that, they are warned of imminent removal. Of course, when half the LAPD is in the chambers with you, there's a confidence embedded in such a warning. Most Neighborhood Councils MIGHT have a security guard and little more. If an NC Chair is to employ SB1100, no fewer than three clear warnings should be administered in accordance with printed material in public possession. This was the bare minimum for Zoom meetings. Again, consult the City Attorney for guidance.
The BEST THING to do is appeal to the understanding of the would-be disruptors. Ultimately, Neighborhood Council Board members are ordinary citizens, woefully under-trained in both political process and civil engagement, and criminally under-equipped by the City to perform the business-at-hand (the EVGh pilot program debacle, for example). Board members will get things wrong because Board members are HUMANS with a life outside of the NC. They don't make $207,000 annually. They don't have Chiefs of Staff. They don't have staffs. And, most important of all, their actions are advisory in application, not legislative. Rules dictate to avoid a back-and-forth with attendees, yet an opening statement from the Chair appealing to this understanding may mitigate the zeal of any outburst.
Certainly, a Neighborhood Council Board would be an easy mark for blowing off pent-up steam. The Board members, however, aren't some high-and-mighty out-of-touch politicians. They, in fact, are your neighbors.
With a sometimes thankless job.
