Council Recap: Public meeting policy adopted

Council Recap: Public meeting policy adopted

Published on May 27, 2026

At their Tuesday, May 26 meeting, the Lakewood City Council voted to adopt Resolution No. 2026-16, approving a new city policy related to Senate Bill 707, a state law that updates the Ralph M. Brown Act.

The Brown Act is California's open meetings law for cities and other local agencies. SB 707 creates new requirements for how the public can access, observe and participate in hybrid or fully remote public meetings. The law modernizes teleconferencing rules, clarifies public access expectations and establishes standards for hybrid and remote meeting participation.

SB 707 also includes requirements related to remote participation, translation of meeting agendas, interpretation and translation services, a dedicated public meeting webpage, additional agenda posting locations and expanded public outreach efforts.

The law also requires cities to adopt procedures for what happens if the phone or internet service used for remote public participation is disrupted during a meeting. Under Lakewood's policy, if telephonic or internet service for remote participants is disrupted during an open session meeting, the meeting would be recessed while staff make good-faith efforts to restore service. Generally, the City Council could not reconvene the open session until at least one hour after the disruption or until service is restored, whichever happens first.

If service cannot be restored, the City Council may reconvene only after making certain findings by roll call vote, including that good-faith efforts were made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the lack of remote access.

The policy also provides guidance for responding to actual disruptions caused by in-person or remote participants. The policy focuses on disruptive behavior that interferes with the conduct of city business, while recognizing that public meetings are limited public forums and that members of the public have First Amendment rights when addressing the City Council.

• Council Recap