Staff Report - Disruption Policy Page 1 of 4
25977.00100\45024781.1
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
Michelle Estabillo, City Clerk
VIA: Dan Barros, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of Disruption Policy Under Senate Bill 707
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY ON DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 707
COUNCIL ADOPTED VALUES
The City Council’s adoption of the resolution is consistent with the value of responsibility as it will ensure the Town is in compliance with Senate Bill 707 as the requirement to adopt a disruption policy is required by state law. It is also consistent with the value of honesty and integrity as it will ensure the public has a clear understanding of when a disruption occurs in a public meeting and how the Town will handle that disruption.
BACKGROUND
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 et seq.) imposes open meeting requirements on local legislative bodies. In 2025, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 707 (“SB 707”), which reorganizes, clarifies, and updates various Brown Act provisions, including those governing teleconferencing, remote public participation, and meeting procedures.
SB 707 applies to all legislative bodies as defined by the Brown Act, but certain special provisions apply only to what is now defined in the Brown Act as “eligible legislative bodies.” The Colma City Council (but not other boards, commissions, or committees of the Town) qualifies as an “eligible legislative body” because the City Council governs a Town located in San Mateo County, a County with a population of more than 600,000 people. See, Cal. Gov. Code 54953.4(e)(2)(C)(defining “eligible legislative body” to include a city council of a city located in a county with a population of 600,000 or more).
AGENDA ITEM #5
Staff Report - Disruption Policy Page 2 of 4
25977.00100\45024781.1
Among other things, starting July 1, 2026, SB 707 requires Brown Act meetings for “eligible legislative bodies” (in this case, only the City Council) to follow specific requirements for providing remote access to public participants in Council meetings via two-way audiovisual platforms or two-way telephonic services; captioning when using audiovisual platforms; and expanded accessibility and translation for notices and websites. In short, state law now requires that the Town allow the public to attend and comment at Council meetings via Zoom. As you know, the Town stopped allowing the public from providing public comment via Zoom, but based on the requirements of SB 707, the Town is now required to re-allow the public to comment via Zoom.
ANALYSIS
Requirement to Adopt a Policy for Service Disruptions for Remote Meeting Participants A key aspect of SB 707 is that eligible legislative bodies are required, on or before July 1, 2026, to adopt a policy governing disruption of telephonic and internet service for remote participants.
Such a policy must be adopted by a separate majority vote (i.e. not on the consent calendar) of the eligible legislative body in an open session.
SB 707 sets specific requirements that must be contained within that policy. It must contain procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of disruption. It must also specify the efforts that the eligible legislative body shall make to attempt to restore the service for persons participating remotely in the meeting.
These requirements include recessing the open session and making a good faith attempt to restore the service if a disruption of telephonic or internet services occurs that prevents the public from attending or observing the meeting. The policy must also prohibit the legislative body from reconvening the open session of the meeting until at least one hour following the disruption, or until telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever is earlier.
Additionally, if telephonic or internet service cannot be restored, the eligible legislative body may reconvene the open session provided it adopts a finding by rollcall vote that good faith efforts to restore the telephonic or internet service have been made in accordance with its SB 707 policy and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.
These requirements do not apply to certain specified types of meetings, including meetings held offsite or for inspection purposes, or in emergency situations. The attached policy lists those exemptions.
Disruptions Caused by Participants
While not required under SB 707, the attached Policy on Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Services also includes a section with guidance to the City Council and Staff in the event of an intentional disruption to a meeting caused by a remote public participant or group of participants.
While the Town can respond when in-person or remote participants actually disrupt a public meeting, the First Amendment and Brown Act rights of public participants must also be respected, even if that speech is offensive. Therefore, it is beneficial for local legislative bodies to have
Staff Report - Disruption Policy Page 3 of 4
25977.00100\45024781.1
written guidance about how and when to respond. Written guidance can empower the Mayor, Councilmembers and Staff to address such disruptions in an effective and lawful manner.
Recognizing the core First Amendment right to petition the government, City Council meetings are considered “limited public forums.”1 In these situations, the government can only impose reasonable time, place and manner regulations that are (i) content neutral; (ii) narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; and (iii) leave open alternative channels of communication. Examples of permissible regulations would be (1) requirements that public comment be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council (i.e., not criticizing federal foreign policy) or (2) time limitations on speakers. However, other restrictions on the content of speech are not permitted. This would include prohibiting profane or even slanderous comments. (Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. 2010) 629 F.3d 966 [city cannot prohibit Nazi salute at public meeting]; see also Gov. Code, § 54594.3(c) [Board cannot “prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services” of the Town or City Council].) These broad free speech protections do have limits. Speakers cannot use public comment to actually disrupt the meeting or otherwise interfere with the conduct of Town business. Based on this, the key to regulating speech at public meetings is to regulate disruptive behavior rather than the content of the speech.
The attached policy provides that in the event of an actual disruption, after a first verbal warning from the Presiding Officer or the City Clerk, a disruptive remote public participant may have their microphone muted, have their video switched off, or be removed entirely from the meeting either as a last resort or because stopping the video or muting the participant is not available on the service being used. The policy also defines an actual disruption in accordance with relevant laws, so that the Presiding Officer and Staff can distinguish between protected First Amendment speech and a disruption.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council’s adoption of the resolution adopting a disruption policy is not anticipated to cause any financial impacts other than with staff time preparing and implementing the policy.
Town staff previously updated the technology in the Council Chambers to allow for Zoom during public meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The City Council’s adoption of the resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline 15378 as it is more akin to general policy and procedure making without any change in the environment.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to adopt the policy. This option is not recommended because the requirement to adopt a disruption policy is required by state law. 1 White v. City of Norwalk (9th Cir. 1990) 900 F.2d 1421, 1425
Staff Report - Disruption Policy Page 4 of 4
25977.00100\45024781.1
The City Council could also choose to request changes to the policy. Any changes will need to be carefully considered as the content of the policy is based on the requirements included in state law.
CONCLUSION
The City Council should adopt the resolution to adopt a disruption policy.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Resolution
Res. 2026 – Disruption Policy Page 1 of 2
25977.00100\45024850.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF COLMA
RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICY ON DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 707 The City Council of the Town of Colma hereby resolves:
1.Background
(a)The Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code section 54950 et seq.) ensures that meetings of legislative bodies are conducted openly and that the public has the opportunity to participate in those meetings.
(b)Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to require eligible legislative bodies to adopt, on or before July 1, 2026, a policy addressing how the agency will respond to disruptions in telephonic or internet service that prevent members of the public from participating remotely. (c)The City Council desires to establish clear procedures for responding to technological disruptions during meetings as outlined in Exhibit A to this resolution.
2.Order
(a)The City Council hereby adopts Exhibit A titled, “Policy: Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Public Meetings.”
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
ATTACHMENT A
Res. 2026 – Disruption Policy Page 2 of 2
25977.00100\45024850.1
Certification of Adoption
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-__ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held May __, 2026 by the following vote:
Name Voting Present, Not Voting Absent
Aye No Abstain Not Participating
Carrie Slaughter, Mayor
Helen Fisicaro , Vice Mayor
Joanne F. del Rosario
Ken Gonzalez
Thomas Walsh
Voting Tally
Dated ______________________ ___________________________________ Carrie Slaughter, Mayor
Attest: ____________________________
Michelle Estabillo, City Clerk