The Government of Tomorrow: Online Meetings

The Government of Tomorrow: Online Meetings Report #261 | June 2021 Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy www.lhc.ca.gov LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Dedicated to Promoting Economy and Efficiency in California State Pedro Nava* Government Chairman Sean Varner The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Vice Chairman Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency. David Beier Dion Aroner By statute, the Commission is a bipartisan board composed of five public members appointed by the governor, four public Cynthia Buiza members appointed by the Legislature, two senators and two Bill Emmerson† assemblymembers. Assemblymember Chad Mayes In creating the Commission in 1962, the Legislature declared its Senator Jim Nielsen purpose: Assemblymember Bill Quirk Senator Richard Roth ...to secure assistance for the Governor and itself in promoting economy, efficiency and improved services in the Cathy Schwamberger transaction of the public business in the various departments, Janna Sidley agencies and instrumentalities of the executive branch of †Served as subcommittee chair the state government, and in making the operation of all state departments, agencies and instrumentalities, and *Served on study subcommittee all expenditures of public funds, more directly responsive COMMISSION STAFF to the wishes of the people as expressed by their elected representatives... Ethan Rarick Executive Director The Commission fulfills this charge by listening to the public, Tamar Foster consulting with the experts and conferring with the wise. In the course of its investigations, the Commission typically empanels Deputy Executive Director advisory committees, conducts public hearings and visits government Krystal Beckham operations in action. Ashley Hurley Its conclusions are submitted to the Governor and the Legislature Rachel Mattioli for their consideration. Recommendations often take the form of Sherry McAlister legislation, which the Commission supports through the legislative Tristan Stein process. Contacting the Commission All correspondence should be addressed to the Commission Office: Little Hoover Commission 925 L Street, Suite 805, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-2125 | LittleHoover@lhc.ca.gov This report is available from the Commission’s website at www.lhc.ca.gov. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................4 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................4 GREATER PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY ....................................................5 RECOMMENDATION 1: TAKE THE MEETINGS TO THE PUBLIC, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND .......................................................6 BENEFITS OF REMOTE PARTICIPATION .........................................7 Reduced costs ..................................................................................................7 Better attendance by commission members ..............................................8 Broader potential pool of public servants ...................................................8 More frequent and timely meetings .............................................................9 Better witnesses ..............................................................................................9 RECOMMENDATION 2: REMOVE BARRIERS TO REMOTE PARTICIPATION ................................................................................10 REFORM PROCESS ...........................................................................12 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................12 APPENDIX A: REMOTE MEETINGS SURVEY ..................................13 NOTES ................................................................................................15 THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 1 Letter from the Chair June 28, 2021 The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor of California The Honorable Toni Atkins The Honorable Scott Wilk Speaker pro Tempore of the Senate Senate Minority Leader and members of the Senate The Honorable Anthony Rendon The Honorable Marie Waldron Speaker of the Assembly Assembly Minority Leader and members of the Assembly DEAR GOVERNOR AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE: Over the last year, under the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order, state boards and commissions have had the ability to meet via remote technology, with no physical location accessible to the public. The following report considers the benefits of these temporary provisions and details our recommendations to help the state utilize new technologies and capitalize on the experiences of the last year. We found that allowing the public to access meetings electronically is a simple, cheap and manageable reform that will make California more transparent. Furthermore, the Commission found that remote participation by the members of boards and commissions saves taxpayer money and creates a state government that is more effective, inclusive and flexible. In order to take advantage of these benefits in the long-term, the Commission recommends that the state make two simple reforms to Bagley-Keene: give the public remote access to every meeting and make it easier for members of boards to participate remotely. Temporary provisions allowing state agencies to meet remotely are set to expire on September 30. Given this fast-approaching deadline, the Commission asks that you act quickly to make these critical changes. The Commission respectfully submits this work and stands prepared to help you address this challenge. Sincerely, Pedro Nava, Chair Little Hoover Commission 2 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Executive Summary Letter from the Chair California policymakers must act quickly to update and the ability to meet more often and in a timely the state’s open meeting law – the Bagley-Keene Act – way. to reflect new technologies and the experience of the However, the traditional requirements of Bagley- past year. Keene – those that were in place before the We believe two key reforms will create an updated pandemic and that remain in statute today – make Bagley-Keene framework that increases public it extremely difficult for board and commission access while capturing the efficiency and cost-saving members to participate remotely. advantages of new technologies. Results from our The Commission recommends that the Legislature survey of state boards and commissions that have and the Governor amend Bagley-Keene to allow for met remotely during the pandemic provide a better the remote participation of board and commission understanding of their experiences and the benefits members without required public disclosure and of reform. public accessibility to those locations. Increasing Access to All Public Meetings Online access to public meetings benefits those who traditionally face obstacles in interacting with state government, such as low-income people, rural Californians, and people with physical disabilities. Requiring that state agencies allow the public to access meetings electronically is a simple, cheap and manageable reform that will make California government more transparent. The Commission recommends that the Legislature and the Governor amend Bagley-Keene to require that boards and commissions provide public access to their meetings in both a physical location and a teleconferencing option. Removing Barriers to Remote Participation Over the last year, state boards and commissions have held meetings in which their own members participated via remote technology. Our survey of Bagley-Keene agencies affirms that such meetings offer substantial benefits to the public, including reduced travel costs, a broadening of potential board members and commissioners who are able to serve, THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 3 Introduction In March of 2020, as the pandemic took hold and access, strengthen government accountability, save state government transitioned to remote work, taxpayer money, allow for a broader representation Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, on state boards and commissions, and bring the waiving specified provisions of California’s open- law into line with the modern world. California meetings law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. government should be an open book, but there’s no The Governor’s order allowed state boards and reason it can’t be read online. commissions to meet entirely via remote technology, Background with no physical location accessible to the public. Although the Governor’s order was issued as a public The Bagley-Keene Act is a cornerstone of California’s health measure, over the ensuing year it transitioned open-government laws.1 With very limited exceptions, into an experiment in a new age of government. it requires that state boards and commissions meet The experiment was successful. As public bodies publicly, with lengthy advance notice of the meeting across the state met remotely, public accessibility and the agenda. The public must be allowed to improved while costs went down. It is time now attend and to comment on the proceedings. The law to make the experiment a permanent feature of allows for remote, “teleconference” participation by California government. Our statutes should catch up members of the board or commission, but requires to our technology and experience. public disclosure and public accessibility for each of the remote locations.2 This can be achieved through two simple but critical reforms – give the public remote access to every These requirements posed an obvious public- meeting, and make it easier for the members of health issue during the pandemic, and thus the boards to participate remotely. Governor, by Executive Order, waived key provisions of Bagley-Keene.3 In essence, state bodies were First, to ensure maximum accessibility for the public, allowed to meet entirely by teleconference, with require that every meeting be accessible both no specified physical location for the meeting, through a physical location and a remote option, such and no requirement for a physical location as a telephone conference call or an Internet service. accessible to the public. Crucially, the Governor Californians can walk in or log on – their choice. waived the requirement for public disclosure of the remote locations from which board members Second, to capture the full benefits of online and commissioners were participating. So long as meetings – such as lower travel costs and a greater members of the public could “observe and address diversity of potential board members – make it the meeting” by remote technology, the public easier for members of Bagley-Keene agencies to agency had satisfied the requirement for meeting participate remotely. Current law requires that every openly. location from which a board member joins a meeting – including a home office or a spare bedroom – The Governor’s order cleared the way for state must be accessible to all members of the public. boards and commissions to meet via remote That makes no sense. Members of the public have technologies – such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams every right to watch public agencies do the public’s or some other similar service, or even by simple business; they don’t have a right to invade someone’s conference call – with members participating from home. their homes or private offices. Our Commission met in exactly this manner, as did most other agencies Combining these two key changes will increase public covered by Bagley-Keene. 4 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION To measure the experience of state agencies under in place the pandemic Bagley-Keene requirements, these provisions, we surveyed 124 state boards but only until Sept. 30.4 After that, the pre-pandemic or commissions covered by Bagley-Keene, and requirements of Bagley-Keene would resume. received a response from 46, or slightly more than We are supporters of Bagley-Keene; California a third of those surveyed. (See Appendix A for government is stronger for its openness. But we details and methodology.) Almost all of the agencies also believe that some provisions of the law must who responded said they had held entirely remote be updated to reflect new technologies, and the meetings during the pandemic, and about a third practical experience of using those new technologies said they had actually met more frequently due to during the past year. Given the fast-approaching their ability to meet remotely. (The other two-thirds expiration of the Governor’s order, we believe said there had been no change in meeting frequency; policymakers must act quickly to create an updated no agency reported less frequent meetings.) As Bagley-Keene framework that increases public outlined below in more detail, most agencies access while capturing the efficiency and cost-saving reported a variety of positive outcomes from the advantages of new technologies. Below, we outline remote meetings: greater public participation, more two key reforms that we believe would accomplish frequent attendance by board and commission these goals. members, and reduced costs to the state. Of those agencies that have witnesses testify, nearly half Greater Public Accessibility reported that it was easier to secure witnesses. Our own experience at the Little Hoover Commission Meetings are more accessible when members of echoed all of these findings. the public don’t have to leave their homes or offices to listen and watch.5 This obvious truth is critical However, as the pandemic subsides, state agencies to reform. A physical meeting location – such as a face an uncertain future regarding their ability to hearing room in the state Capitol or conference room meet remotely. On June 11, Governor Newsom in a state office building – can be accessed only by issued a new Executive Order essentially keeping “Do you feel that remote meetings have changed the level of public attendance?” A lot more public attendance 58% Somewhat more public attendance 37% No change 5% Somewhat less public attendance 0% A lot less public attendance 0% THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 5 people who can come to Sacramento, take time off Newsom’s recent announcement of a $7 billion plan from work or family responsibilities, and physically to expand broadband access is an important step attend the meeting. A meeting which the public can toward addressing this problem, and progress in this attend online, by contrast, can be accessed by people regard will only increase the accessibility of online throughout California (and indeed around the world), meetings.8 often from the comfort and ease of their own homes. But even with current rates of Internet access, a Especially in a state as vast as California, it is a high requirement that members of the public have a hurdle indeed to require that members of the public remote option to observe the meeting and comment travel to Sacramento just to watch their government upon the proceedings is a clear step forward in at work. increased public accessibility. The empirical data from the pandemic shows that, Recommendation 1: Take the at least in the view of the agencies that hold such meetings, they are more accessible. More than 95 meeting to the public, not the percent of agencies responding to our survey said other way around they believe that remote meetings have increased attendance, and most said there had been “a lot We recommend that the Legislature and the more public attendance.” Governor amend Bagley-Keene to require that boards and commissions provide public access to This increased public accessibility has particular their meetings both in a physical location and a advantages for equity and inclusion. Online access teleconferencing option. (For reasons we discuss does not benefit those who can attend physical below, the physical location we envision need not meetings – often the well-heeled, retired people, necessarily include board and commission members, special interests with a presence in Sacramento, but rather might simply be a location at which and the like – but it clearly benefits those who members of the public may listen to and watch audio traditionally face obstacles in interacting with state and video of the meeting.) government, such as low-income people, rural Californians, and people with physical disabilities. Such a requirement will not be onerous for state Current law acknowledges the importance of such agencies – the past year has proven that agencies issues by requiring meeting locations that are can easily and cheaply provide remote public access, accessible to the disabled;6 for many disabled people, even when they had no warning of the need to do the Internet is surely more accessible than the state so and had to transition on the fly amid state budget Capitol. cuts, salary reductions, and dramatically changed working conditions. After the past 12 months, no Online access is by no means perfect, of course. reasonable person can claim that remote meetings As noted in our Commission’s recent Issue Brief, are simply too difficult to organize. As has been California’s Digital Divide, as many as 2.3 million the case during the past year, agencies should Californians lack access to broadband. Overall, be required to accommodate individuals with the state’s access to broadband is ranked 13th in disabilities, publicly notice the technological means the nation, with strong access to low-cost plans by which members of the public may attend the but slow speeds.7 Researchers have consistently meeting and make public comment, and abide by found that poor people, people of color, and rural other existing requirements for public notice. Current residents have less access to the Internet. Governor law requiring rollcall votes during teleconference 6 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION meetings should also be retained. Benefits of Remote Participation We are aware that some public-access advocates and some state agencies have expressed concerns During the pandemic state boards and commissions about technology failures – should the ability to meet have held meetings in which their own members be held hostage to the reliability of the Internet? The participate via remote technology. Such meetings law clearly needs to make some provision for such offer substantial benefits to the public, including a situation, but existing requirements face some of reduced travel costs, a broadening of potential board the same issues. Current law, for example, allows members and commissioners who are able to serve, for greater flexibility for remote participation by and the ability to meet more often and in a timely members of purely advisory bodies, but also requires way. Our Commission has experienced these benefits that if the method of remote access fails, the meeting directly, and our survey of other Bagley-Keene must adjourn.9 An Attorney General’s opinion in agencies confirms that we are not alone. 2016 found that the Brown Act’s requirement for online agenda-posting is not necessarily violated REDUCED COSTS if an agenda is inaccessible for a portion of the When board or commission members must travel required period due to technical difficulties.10 The to Sacramento (or any other given location in the same opinion also found that in such a case an state) to attend meetings in person, the agency agency may hold its meeting if it “has otherwise bears significant costs, such as airfare, mileage, substantially complied with the Brown Act’s agenda- hotel accommodations and per diem. For our own posting requirements.” Existing law, in other words, Commission, pre-pandemic travel costs were the already contemplates and addresses the potential for technological failure. Similar language could “Have remote meetings impacted your be incorporated into a reform statute, either expenditures, due to the lack of travel allowing agencies to continue meetings without costs, increased technology costs, or other the teleconference option if a sufficient number changes?” of members were physically present, or simply requiring agencies to adjourn the meeting, much as they would do now if a power outage or fire caused 91% their meeting room to be unavailable. The broader point is that in a world in which so much is increasingly reliant on the Internet – business, politics, journalism, healthcare, education, etc. – a fear of technological failure cannot forestall needed reforms. California cannot create the government of 7% tomorrow if it fears technology. 2% At a time when our society is rightfully focused More Less expensive No change on issues of equity and inclusion, requiring that expensive to to meet state agencies allow the public to access meetings electronically is a simple, cheap and manageable meet remotely remotely reform that will make California government more transparent. THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 7 BETTER ATTENDANCE BY COMMISSION Asked of those who said their costs MEMBERS had decreased: “Roughly how much Californians who agree to serve on state boards have your annual expenditures and commissions often give freely of their time – decreased due to remote many are not compensated at all. Their service is meetings?” often deeply committed, but given the travel times discussed above, sometimes board members must 28% miss meetings. That is far less likely to happen if participation in a meeting requires only that Reported that their annual expenditures members log on. About half of agencies responding decreased by less than $10,000. to our survey indicated that remote meetings have increased attendance by members. 49% “Do you feel that remote meetings have Reported that their annual expenditures changed the frequency of attendance for decreased by $10,000 - $50,000. members of your organization?” 23% 51% Reported that their annual expenditures 49% decreased by more than $50,000. third largest component of our budget, behind only staff salaries and office space. Our ability to meet via remote technology has eliminated almost all such 0% costs. Our survey of Bagley-Keene agencies found that more than 90 percent of responding agencies Greater Less No change similarly reported reduced costs due to remote attendance attendance meetings. In the context of the state budget, the savings are not large – about half the responding agencies estimated the savings at between $10,000 BROADER POTENTIAL POOL OF PUBLIC SERVANTS and $50,000 a year – but there is no reason that taxpayers should foot any unnecessary bill. The need for travel also restricts the potential pool of people able to serve on state boards and When asked to specify what costs have been reduced commissions. Typically, members of a board or or increased, the vast majority of respondents commission must spend an entire day, and perhaps identified decreased travel and facility rental costs. more, in traveling to Sacramento, attending Some respondents cited increased technology costs a meeting, and returning home. Given such such as Zoom licenses or cameras, but these were requirements, it may be difficult for some people to usually more than offset by savings. Only three of accept appointment to a state body. Many people the 43 agencies that responded to this question may not be able to take so much time away from identified a net increase in costs. work. The parents of young children, perhaps 8 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION especially women, may find it impossible to be away BETTER WITNESSES from home. People from distant parts of the state For agencies that call witnesses to testify, remote – especially rural areas with limited airline service – access has been a boon. Our survey found that may find such travel particularly time-consuming. As roughly half of the agencies that have witnesses said a result, service on state boards and commissions it has been easier to secure high-quality speakers. can be tilted toward the affluent or the retired. This should not be. California deserves the most inclusive “If your organization has witnesses who and diverse state government possible, a goal that is appear before you, has your ability to secure furthered by reducing the burdens of service. high-quality witnesses changed due to their MORE FREQUENT AND TIMELY MEETINGS ability to appear remotely?” Remote participation allows for more frequent and timely meetings. Our own Commission’s 49% experience again illustrates this fact. The Commission traditionally met 10 times a year, but during the pandemic we have roughly doubled our meeting frequency. By meeting more often, we are better able 28% to set agendas that reflect ongoing events, creating 23% a more timely focus for our work. About a third of agencies responding to our survey reported that they 0% are meeting more often due to their ability to meet remotely. Easier to More difficult No change Not “Has the frequency of your meetings secure to secure applicable changed due to your ability to meet witnesses witnesses remotely?” In short, remote participation by the members of boards and commissions saves taxpayer money and 66% creates a state government that is more effective, inclusive and flexible. However, the traditional requirements of Bagley- Keene – those that were in place before the 34% pandemic and that remain in statute today – make it extremely difficult for board and commission members to participate remotely. Prior to the 0% pandemic, the law required public disclosure and public accessibility to every location from which a board or commission member participated. More Less frequent No change Effectively, this prohibits members from participating frequent meetings from their homes or even their private offices. meetings Understandably, they are reluctant to publicly disclose their home addresses, and even more so THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 9 “If you were required to hold future meetings under pre-pandemic requirements, in which the physical location of each participating member of your organization had to be publicly noticed and accessible, would this affect your decision to hold remote meetings?” 86% 0% 14% Less likely to More likely to No change meet remotely meet remotely to allow access to any member of the public who boards and commissions, we recommend that the might show up. Indeed, the Department of Justice’s Legislature and the Governor amend Bagley-Keene guide to Bagley-Keene notes the difficulty of a to allow for the remote participation of board and member participating from home, and then adds, commission members without required public “For these reasons, we recommend that a properly disclosure and public accessibility to those locations. equipped and accessible public building be utilized If policymakers wish to do so, the law could limit the for teleconference meetings.”11 disclosure and accessibility exemption to the board member’s private residence. Thus, if the state reverts to the traditional Bagley- Keene statute upon the expiration of the Governor’s Some public-access advocates argue that much is order, members of boards and commissions will lost when members of the public cannot sit in the effectively be unable to participate from their same room with board or commission members homes – precisely the kind of participation that has during a meeting. They argue that the public’s produced benefits during the past year. Our survey ability to witness the physical interaction of board of state agencies confirmed that agencies will not members is a substantial benefit, and that people hold remote meetings under the standards of the who wish to travel to Sacramento and attend an pre-pandemic Bagley-Keene law, with more than 85 in-person meeting must be able to do so. Anything percent saying they would not do so. less is a blow to transparent government. We respect those concerns, but we reach different conclusions. Recommendation 2: First, we do not believe that physical presence in Remove barriers to remote a room is critical to public access. What is critical is that members of the public have the ability to participation know what board members and commissioners To capture the benefits of remote meetings, say and do – every word at every public meeting, including remote participation by members of state every vote, every action. Allowing agencies to take 10 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION advantage of modern technology doesn’t diminish We also recognize that some agencies may wish that access. Second, even if the public’s inability to hold meetings in various locations around the to be physically present amounts to some minor state, and that the physical presence of board and reduction in access, this must be counter-balanced commission members at such meetings could bring against the improvements, discussed above, that a variety of benefits. Our own Commission is an remote participation can create – lower costs, greater example. We have held public hearings across the inclusion, and greater flexibility. It’s critical to note state, both to learn from diverse geographic settings, that these advantages benefit the public. Californians and to emphasize our role as a statewide body. deserve an open and transparent government, Obviously we do not wish to preclude such meetings, but they also deserve one that takes advantage of and nothing in our proposed reforms would do so. technological change to advance goals like efficiency Boards and commissions should certainly be able to and inclusion. meet in a physical location whenever they believe it is advantageous to their mission. Other objections seem to us even less convincing, for example that members of the public will not What is critical is that members be able to see if someone else is in the room with a participating board member, or even that of the public have the ability someone might impersonate a member of a board to know what board members or commission. As for the first issue, at an in-person and commissioners say and do meeting held under current law, a lobbyist or advocate could meet with a board or commission – every word at every public member privately immediately before a meeting, meeting, every vote, every or even during a break, or could text a member during a meeting. It is unlikely that the influence of action. such private interests will be markedly increased by someone sitting behind a laptop silently making Finally, we recommend that all board and gestures during a remote meeting (assuming that commission members be allowed to participate a board member wanted to allow such a person remotely. We anticipate that at times, nearly all into their home). As for impersonation, we find members might attend in person – perhaps for a this highly unlikely, but if policymakers are deeply meeting focused on a particular regional issue and concerned about the potential for such shenanigans, held at a relevant location around the state, for they can make it a crime to impersonate a board or example. In other cases, one or two members might commission member during remote participation at attend physically at a public location. At other times, a meeting. all members might participate remotely. In the latter We recommend that the statute be permissive case, agencies would still have to provide at least one with regard to the disclosure and access of remote physical location for the meeting, which would simply locations. If agencies wish to disclose such locations be a place where members of the public could go and allow public access, they should be able to do to listen to the meeting, and from which they could so. For example, a board member might access a make public comment. Alternatively, policymakers meeting from a conference room with suitable public could choose to require that at least one member of facilities, and there is no reason in such a case to the board or commission be present at the physical prohibit public disclosure and access. site. THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 11 Reform Process Conclusion To be most effective, the changes we have The year of the pandemic has proven that state recommended must be made quickly. As noted government can take advantage of modern above, the Governor’s recent executive order waives technology to hold meetings that are more the relevant provisions of Bagley-Keene only until accessible, more affordable, and more efficient. Sept. 30. Remote access to all public meetings unquestionably increases the public’s ability to monitor state Seeking to address these issues, the Department of government. The practical ability of board and Finance has prepared a trailer bill that would require commission members to participate remotely state agencies to hold teleconference meetings, from their homes or private offices allows for this and allow members of the board or commission to important segment of state government to increase participate remotely from undisclosed locations.12 efficiency, inclusion and flexibility. In fact the bill would prohibit state agencies from disclosing remote locations, a difference from our recommendations. Earlier this year Assemblymember Quirk, who is a member of our Commission, introduced Assembly Bill 885, which would allow for remote participation by members of boards and commissions from undisclosed locations, although it would, similar to our recommendations, require the continued existence of at least one physical location from which members of the public could watch and listen to the meeting.13 This bill, which did not move out of the Assembly, would have required that board and commission members participating remotely have both audio and visual connections, a specific not addressed in our recommendations. AB 885 would also not have required that every public meeting of a Bagley-Keene agency be available for remote access by the public, another difference from our recommendations. Regardless of the precise vehicle that is used, we believe the Legislature and the Governor should act quickly to ensure that state agencies can build upon the momentum of the past year and continue to meet remotely even after the rescission of the Governor’s executive order. 12 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Appendix A: Remote Meetings Survey The Commission surveyed state boards and 2. Has the frequency of your meetings changed due commissions to learn more about the experiences to your ability to meet remotely? of organizations that have met remotely during the pandemic. The survey – conducted between Tuesday, Responses Percent May 11, 2021 and Friday, May 21, 2021 – was sent to More frequent meetings 15 34% Less frequent meetings 0 0% 124 individuals representing 125 state boards and No change 29 66% commissions. We compiled the list of organizations from Capitol Enquiry’s 2021 California State Agency 3. Do you feel that remote meetings have changed Directory, California State Government’s Agency the level of public attendance? Database, and Capitol Morning Report. Where contact information was available, we sent the Responses Percent survey to the corresponding organization’s executive A lot more public attendance 25 58% director/officer. When this information was not Somewhat more public attendance 16 37% available, we sent the survey to the contact person No change 2 5% listed on the corresponding organization’s website. Somewhat less public attendance 0 0% If none was listed, we included the organization’s A lot less public attendance 0 0% general email address. Although our Commission is governed by Bagley-Keene, we did not survey 4. Do you feel that remote meetings have changed ourselves. the frequency of attendance for members of your organization? Of the 124 individuals who received the survey, two opted out. 46 individuals responded to the survey, Responses Percent three of which indicated that their organization has Greater attendance 22 51% not met entirely remotely during the pandemic and Less attendance 0 0% thus did not complete the remainder of the survey. No change 21 49% Most (85 percent) of those who responded are executive directors/officers. 5. Have remote meetings impacted your expenditures, due to the lack of travel costs, Respondents were asked a maximum of 9 questions, increased technology costs, or other changes? one of which was open-ended. Below are the questions asked in the survey: Responses Percent More expensive to meet remotely 3 7% 1. Has your organization held entirely remote Less expensive to meet remotely 39 91% meetings during the pandemic (i.e., meetings in No change 1 2% which there was no physical location accessible to the public)? If more expensive: Roughly how much have your annual expenditures increased due to remote Responses Percent meetings? Yes 43 93% No 3 7% Responses Percent Less than $10,000 per year 1 33% $10,000-50,000 per year 1 33% More than $50,000 per year 1 33% THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 13 Appendix A: Continued If less expensive: Roughly how much have your annual expenditures decreased due to remote meetings? Responses Percent Less than $10,000 per year 11 28% $10,000-50,000 per year 19 49% More than $50,000 per year 9 23% Optional: What costs have increased or decreased as a result of remote meetings? Responses to this question were open-ended. 6. If your organization has witnesses who appear before you, has your ability to secure high-quality witnesses changed due to their ability to appear remotely? Responses Percent Easier to secure witnesses 10 23% More difficult to secure witnesses 0 0% No change 12 28% Not applicable 21 49% 7. If you were required to hold future meetings under pre-pandemic requirements, in which the physical location of each participating member of your organization had to be publicly noticed and accessible, would this affect your decision to hold remote meetings? Responses Percent Less likely to meet remotely 37 86% More likely to meet remotely 0 0% No change 6 14% 14 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Notes 1. Similar requirements apply to local government 7. Little Hoover Commission. “Issue Brief: agencies, although these provisions are California’s Digital Divide.” December 2020. contained in a separate law, the Brown Act. https://lhc.ca.gov/report/issue-brief-californias- Although many provisions of the Bagley-Keene digital-divide. Act and the Brown Act are nearly identical, some 8. Jackie Botts. “Newsom proposes $7 billion critical facts about state government and local expansion in broadband internet.” May 17, 2021. government are different – especially the typical CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/projects/ geographic reach of state and local agencies. newsom-broadband-expansion/. Given these differences and our Commission’s focus on state government, this report addresses 9. Government Code Section 11123.5. only the potential reform of the Bagley-Keene Act, not the Brown Act. However, we recommend 10. 99 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 11. that policymakers consider whether changes are also needed to the Brown Act in light of the past 11. California Attorney General’s Office. “A Handy year's experiences. Guide to Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act 2004.” https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ 2. The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act is found in publications/bagleykeene2004_ada.pdf the California Government Code, Sec. 11120 et seq. 12. “Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act: Remote Participation in Meetings,” https://esd.dof.ca.gov/ 3. The Governor issued Executive Order N-25-20 trailer-bill/public/trailerBill/pdf/392. Accessed on on March 12, 2020, and Executive Order N-29-20 6-14-21. on March 17, 2020, both waiving provisions of Bagley-Keene. 13. Assembly Bill 885 (Quirk, 2021). https://leginfo. legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ 4. Executive Order N-08-21. id=202120220AB885. 5. The Bagley-Keene Act, written in a different era, refers to “teleconference” meetings. In this report, we are referring to any system that allows the public to listen to the meeting remotely, whether by conference phone call, Internet service or some other system, and to make public comment using that system. We are aware that some reform proposals require both audio and video of the participating board members, but we do not have a firm recommendation regarding a requirement for video in addition to audio. 6. California Government Code Section 11131. THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 15 This page has been intentionally left blank. 16 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Little Hoover Commission Members CHAIRMAN PEDRO NAVA | Santa Barbara ASM. CHAD MAYES | Yucca Valley Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly John Pérez in April 2013 and reappointed by Speaker Toni Atkins in September 2015. Elected in November of the Assembly Anthony Rendon in 2017 and again 2014 to represent the 42nd Assembly District. Represents in 2021. Government relations advisor. Former State Beaumont, Hemet, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Assemblymember from 2004 to 2010, civil litigator, San Jacinto, Twentynine Palms, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley, and deputy district attorney and member of the state Coastal surrounding areas. Commission. Elected chair of the Commission in March 2014. SEN. JIM NIELSEN | Gerber Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules VICE CHAIRMAN SEAN VARNER | Riverside Committee in March 2019. Elected in January 2013 to Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. represent the 4th Senate District. Represents Chico, Brown Jr. in April 2016 and reappointed in January 2018. Oroville, Paradise, Red Bluff, Yuba City, and surrounding Managing partner at Varner & Brandt LLP where he areas. practices as a transactional attorney focusing on mergers and acquisitions, finance, real estate, and general counsel ASM. BILL QUIRK | Hayward work. Elected vice chair of the Commission in March 2017. Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly Anthony Rendon in 2017. Elected in November 2012 to DION ARONER | Berkeley represent the 20th Assembly District. Represents Hayward, Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules Union City, Castro Valley, San Lorenzo, Ashland, Cherryland, Committee in April 2019. Partner for Aroner, Jewel, and Fairview, Sunol, and North Fremont. Ellis. Former State Assemblymember from 1996 to 2002, chief of staff for Assemblymember Tom Bates, social SEN. RICHARD ROTH | Riverside worker for Alameda County, and the first female president Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules of Service Employees International Union 535. Committee in February 2013. Elected in November 2012 to represent the 31st Senate District. Represents Corona, DAVID BEIER | San Francisco Coronita, Eastvale, El Cerrito, Highgrove, Home Gardens, Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. Jurupa Valley, March Air Reserve Base, Mead Valley, Brown Jr. in June 2014 and reappointed in January 2018. Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, and Riverside. Managing director of Bay City Capital. Former senior officer of Genentech and Amgen, and counsel to the U.S. House of CATHY SCHWAMBERGER | Calistoga Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules Committee in April 2018 and reappointed in January CYNTHIA BUIZA | Los Angeles 2019. Associate general counsel for State Farm Mutual Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly Automobile Insurance Company. Former board member Anthony Rendon in October 2018. Executive director of the of the Civil Justice Association of California and the Capital California Immigrant Policy Center. Former policy director Political Action Committee. for the American Civil Liberties Union, San Diego, and policy and advocacy director at the Coalition for Humane JANNA SIDLEY | Los Angeles Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. in April 2016 and reappointed in February BILL EMMERSON | Redlands 2020. General counsel at the Port of Los Angeles since Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. 2013. Former deputy city attorney at the Los Angeles City Brown Jr. in December 2018. Former senior vice president Attorney’s Office from 2003 to 2013. of state relations and advocacy at the California Hospital Association, State Senator from 2010 to 2013, State Full biographies are available on the Commission’s Assemblymember from 2004 to 2010, and orthodonist. website at www.lhc.ca.gov. THE GOVERNMENT OF TOMORROW: ONLINE MEETINGS | 17 “DEMOCRACY ITSELF IS A PROCESS OF CHANGE, AND SATISFACTION AND COMPLACENCY ARE ENEMIES OF GOOD GOVERNMENT.” By Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, addressing the inaugural meeting of the Little Hoover Commission, April 24,1962, Sacramento, California Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy www.lhc.ca.gov