Effective and Efficient City
Council, Commission, and
Committee Meetings
Navigating the Brown Act, Handling Disruptions,
and Mastering Robert's Rules of Order
Martin Lysons, City Attorney
1 Governing Authority
•Council Resolution Establishing Rules for
the Conduct of Meetings of the City Council
(Resolution 2026-084)
•Robert’s Rules of Order
•Brown Act (as amended by AB 2449)
2 Council Resolution 2026-084
• Generally consistent with or supplementary to Robert’s Rules of Order.
• Establishes rules for the conduct of meetings of the City Council. • Amended/Replaced Council Resolution 2019-097.
• Contains, among other things, provisions regarding the following:
• Rules of Debate (Section 10),
• Addressing the Council (Section 11),
• Manner of Addressing the Council (Section 12),
• Voting (Section 13), and
• Order and Decorum (Section 14).
3 Robert's Rules of Order:
Member-to-Member Interaction
• General Rule: Councilmembers must be recognized by the Chair (Mayor) before speaking. • Who Decides: When in doubt, the Chair decides which
Councilmember has the floor (i.e., which Councilmember may speak). • Decorum: Address remarks to the Chair, not directly to other members.
• Tone: Maintain professional, courteous, and non-personal tone. • Debate Limits: Council may establish limits on how many times a member may speak per item.
• Interruption: Members generally cannot interrupt a colleague who has the floor. 4 Robert’s Rules of Order:
Allowable Councilmember Interruptions
Under the following circumstances, a Councilmember (and only a Councilmember or designee) may interrupt when another
Councilmember who has the floor:
• Point of Order: Interrupt immediately if a parliamentary rule is breached. • Point of Information: Request vital facts needed for the immediate vote. • Question of Privilege: Raise issues regarding the room environment (e.g., noise, temperature).
• Appeal: Challenge a ruling made by the Presiding Officer (i.e., the Mayor). • Division of Assembly: Demand an individual vote if a voice vote is unclear.
5 Interpretations of Robert’s Rules
in Resolution 2026-084
10 (a): Presiding Officer May Debate
10(d): Privilege of Closing Debate
10(e): Motion to Reconsider
10(f): Statement/Remarks of Councilmember
10(h): Robert’s Rules govern unless otherwise provided
11: Presiding Officer Permission to Address the Council 11(a): Written Communications
11(b): Oral Communications
12: Manner of Addressing Council
6 Foundations of the Brown Act
Core Principle: Public bodies must conduct business
openly.
Applies To: City Council, standing Council committees,
and Commissions and Committees.
Requirement: Agendas must be posted 72 hours before
regular meetings.
Restriction: No meeting discussion or action on nonagendized items (including serial meetings).
Public Right: Citizens must have an opportunity to testify on any agenda item before the Council makes a decision. 7 Meeting Efficiency and Time Management:
Brown Act provisions balancing public participation with the efficient transaction of public business
• Agenda Layout: Group consent items together for a single vote • Speaker Cards: Use to track speaker requests
• Time Limits: Establish uniform, reasonable time limits for public comment (e.g., 3 minutes)
• Presiding Officer: Mayor/Chair to enforce time limits 8 Managing Disruptions (In-Person)
Under the Brown Act
Legal Grounding: California Government Code § 54957.95 allows removal of disruptive individuals.
Definition: Actual disruption that blocks the orderly conduct of the meeting, as defined in § 54957.95(b)(1).
• (A) Failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by the body (e.g., under § 54954.3) or any other law.
• (B) Engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.
“True threat of force” means a threat that has sufficient intent and seriousness that a reasonable observer would perceive it as an actual threat to use force (§ 54957.95(b)(2)).
9 Managing Disruptions (In-Person)
Under the Brown Act
Removal of a live Speaker from a Brown Act meeting:
• Step 1: The Mayor issues a clear, direct warning to the individual. • Step 2: Request voluntary compliance and state the
consequences of continued disruption. (E.g., “If you continue your disruptive behavior, you will be removed from the chambers.”) • Step 3: Order the individual removed by law enforcement if behavior continues.
• Clearance: The Council may clear the room if the entire room becomes unmanageable.
10 AB 2449: Remote Participation
under the Brown Act
Remote public comment must be broadcast in real-time.
• Two-Way Remote Participation: City must provide the public with a live webcast and a two-way platform (like Zoom) to make real-time comments.
• Agenda Disclosures: The agenda must expressly notify the public of all means by which they can access the meeting and submit comments
• No Pre-Submitted Comments: City cannot require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting.
• Mandatory Meeting Pause: If the remote public broadcast or comment system suffers a technical disruption, the Council must freeze all action until it is restored.
11 Managing Remote Disruptions
under AB 2449
AB 2449 Parity: Remote public commenters are subject to the identical behavioral standards and warning protocols as physical attendees.
• Mayor may remove (by shutting of mic and camera) individuals causing "actual disruption" that blocks the meeting's orderly progress.
• Disruption is legally defined as: (A) Refusing to comply with reasonable, lawful meeting rules, or (B) Engaging in the use of physical force or a true, serious threat of force.
12 Removal of Disruptive Participants
under AB 2449
• Disruption Protocol: Apply the same behavioral standards to virtual attendees as live ones.
• Same Warning Procedure
• Same Definition of Disruption
• Mute Control: The meeting host may mute participants who exceed time or disrupt (as defined by the Brown Act).
• Video Disconnection: Cut video feeds if graphic, obscene, or disruptive content is shown.
• Zoom Bombing: Cut camera and mic. Issue Brown Act warning to stay on-topic or to remove offensive graphic material. Restore camera and mic. If behavior persists, cut camera and mic for duration of meeting. 13 Mayor/Chair Warning to Disruptive Speaker
“Speaker, please keep your comments focused on _______________ (the topic at hand).
“You are allowed to criticize city policy, but personal insults directed at staff disrupt the orderly progress of our meeting. “This is your official warning. If you continue to disrupt the meeting by refusing to address the agenda topic, we will mute your Zoom audio line and move to the next speaker.”
14 Disruption Scenario #1
Scenario: Enid stands in the audience during internal Council debate, repeatedly yelling "You are corrupt!" over members' voices.
Action: Mayor pauses meeting, issues a formal SB 1100 warning.
Enid immediately resumes shouting.
15 Scenario #1 Verdict
LEGAL REMOVAL
Enid committed an actual disruption that paralyzed the meeting, and disobeyed a formal, statutory warning. Because the Mayor followed the exact Brown Act warning protocol* and Enid refused to comply, the Mayor can legally order her immediate removal from the building.
*Government § 54957.95(a)(2): speaker must be warned that “their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal.”
16 Disruption Scenario #2
Scenario: 50 protestors blow whistles and stomp feet to paralyze the meeting. Individual ringleaders cannot be separated.
Action: The Mayor stops the meeting and issues a collective warning to the entire room.
The crowd responds by blowing the whistles louder, completely paralyzing the meeting. The leaders of the chant cannot be singled out because a large portion of the crowd is participating uniformly.
The Mayor clears the room.
17 Scenario #2 Verdict
LEGAL CLEARANCE
Under Government Code § 54957.9, if a group willfully interrupts a meeting and order cannot be restored by removing individual agitators, the council can order the entire room cleared.
The council leaves the room, security clears the chamber, and the Council reconvenes to vote. By law, members of the press who did not participate in the disruption must be allowed back into the room so the meeting remains accessible to the public.
18 Disruption Scenario #3
The Council is hearing from residents about local road repairs.
Scenario: Tom takes the podium during his turn to speak on an item regarding local road repairs. He uses curse words, insults the City Manager's competence, and mocks the Council's intelligence during his public comment.
Action: Offended by the vulgar language, the Mayor warns Tom to refrain from using curse words and insults. When Tom continues this behavior, the Mayor orders Tom to leave the podium immediately.
19 Scenario #3 Verdict
ILLEGAL REMOVAL
Courts (Acosta v. Costa Mesa) protect critical, harsh, or vulgar speech. Criticism of officials and use of curst words are not a disruption.
Because Tom did not (1) exceed his three minutes, (2) threaten anyone, or (3) physically block the meeting, his harsh speech is protected by the First Amendment.
20 Disruption Scenario #4
Scenario: Agenda is "Water Billing Software." Gary uses his time to rant about animal shelter corruption, ignoring requests to pivot back to the topic at hand.
Action: Mayor issues a formal warning. Gary keeps shouting about animal shelter. Mayor orders his microphone muted. 21 Scenario #4 Verdict
LEGAL ACTION
Under the Brown Act, public comment on agendized items can be strictly limited to the specific topic on the table.
22 Disruption Scenario #5
Scenario: General comment period. Maria discusses local potholes, then shifts to a rant on federal foreign policy, adding that “our local tax dollars shouldn't support global corporations.“
Action: Mayor cuts her mic and orders her removed for straying from municipal business to international relations.
23 Scenario #5 Verdict
ILLEGAL EJECTION. General public comment only requires
broad "subject matter jurisdiction." Global issues tied to local tax are protected.
Courts (such as in Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach) have long held that councils must give wide latitude to speakers during general Public Comment.
Maria was not disrupting the meeting's flow and was within her allotted time. Removal based on political viewpoint is illegal viewpoint discrimination.
24 Disruption Scenario #6
Scenario: Zoom speaker Katherine insults staff performance on a budget item. Mayor issues the following warning:
“Katherine, I do not like your tone, and you are completely wrong about how this city spends money. You have been complaining about this administration for two minutes now, and we are not going to listen to your lies anymore. Moderator, mute her Zoom line immediately and remove her from the webinar room so we can move on.”
Action: Katherine's Zoom audio line is muted and she is removed from the digital webinar room.
25 Scenario #6 Verdict
ILLEGAL VIEWPOINT BIAS
Cutting off speakers because comments are false, harsh, critical, or disagreeable violates the 1st Amendment.
• Proper Action: Focuses strictly on actual disruption, such as speaking out of turn, exceeding time limits, or refusing to speak on the designated topic.
• Improper Action: Based on viewpoint discrimination, thin- skinned reactions to criticism, or cutting someone off because their comments are disagreeable or factually incorrect. 26 Council Sovereignty
A city council meeting belongs strictly to the Council itself, not to the audience.
The public has a constitutional right to witness the proceedings and testify on agenda items but not the right to manage, interrupt, or dictate the flow of the meeting.
27 Best Practices for Council Success
• Preparation: Review the agenda packet thoroughly before the meeting begins.
• Staff Coordination: Direct complex technical questions to staff before the meeting or let staff know ahead of time to avoid administrative delay on the floor.
• Consistency: Apply rules, time limits, and warnings equally to all participants.
• Civility: Model the respectful behavior expected from the public.
De-escalate disruptions.
28 Thank you!
Questions?
29