The Supreme Court yesterday denied a request in Berkeley People’s Alliance v. City of Berkeley to depublish the First District, Division Four, Court of Appeal’s opinion, which found Brown Act violations by a city council that recessed three of its meetings after attendee disruptions and reconvened the meetings in a different room rather than ordering the original meeting room cleared.
Justice Joshua Groban agreed with the denial — he said he “[did] not find [Division Four’s] interpretation, which tracks the plain language of the statute, to be implausible or clearly wrong” — but he wrote a concurring statement “to voice my concerns that uncertainty regarding the meaning of certain provisions in the . . . Brown Act . . . leave legislative bodies in a difficult — and potentially dangerous — position when confronted with disruptive individuals who willfully interfere with the meeting of a public agency.” (Footnote omitted.)
Justice Groban’s separate statement says, “It seems entirely reasonable that a legislative body would have legitimate concerns that attempting to clear a room of unruly members of the public could create a dangerous situation for attendees and government officials alike.” And he “encourage[s] the Legislature to consider clarifying whether, when faced with a willful, widespread disruption, a legislative body’s only option for carrying on the meeting is to order the public to be physically removed from the hearing.”
