Beginning January 1, 2026, local public agencies across California must comply with several updates to the Ralph M. Brown Act’s (“Brown Act”) open meeting and teleconferencing rules under Senate Bill (“SB”) 707 (2025).   The impact on your organization depends on whether it is considered an “eligible legislative body” as defined in SB 707.   Charter schools are not, meaning only the general changes below will apply to them.

For smaller public agencies—including California charter schools, most school districts, and special districts—the changes are limited to the following:

General Changes Under SB 707

• Mandatory distribution of the Brown Act to board members. Effective January 1, 2026, agencies must provide every board member a copy of the Brown Act.  Previously, this was optional under the Brown Act.  There is no required format or timing.  We recommend sending a copy of the Brown Act to all board members at the start of the new year (email is ok), then including it in onboarding materials.  Agencies may use Procopio’s Brown Act compilation, available here, to meet this requirement.

• Teleconference rules for board members with disabilities. Starting January 1, 2026, SB 707 codifies that a board member may participate remotely as a reasonable accommodation for a disability.  In that case, the agency does not need to meet the other teleconference requirements like posting the director’s address on the agenda.  However, the board member must use both audio and video (unless their disability requires them to participate off-camera) and must disclose before any action is taken whether any adults are present in the room and their relationship.  Agencies relying on this exception should obtain appropriate documentation and engage in the interactive process for the accommodation before relying on this option.

• No changes to traditional teleconferencing rules. Importantly, SB 707 does not make any changes to the traditional teleconference rules under the Brown Act, which are commonly used.  As always, when one or more board members participates in a meeting by teleconference under the traditional rules, the following requirements apply:
  • Teleconference locations must be identified on the agenda and accessible to the public;
  • Agendas must be posted at teleconference locations;
  • At least a quorum must participate from locations within the boundaries of the agency’s jurisdiction; and
  • All votes must be taken by rollcall.

• Changes to “just cause” remote participation rules. Starting January 1, 2026, SB 707 merges prior “just cause” and “emergency circumstances” rules into a single “just cause” exception, effective through January 1, 2030.  Remote participation for “just cause” continues to include contagious illness, family medical emergencies, childcare/caregiving obligations, travel while on official school or other agency business, and other qualifying health reasons, and will also now include certain military service obligations, and having an immunocompromised family member that requires the board member to participate remotely.  Restrictions include annual limits on use, advance notice to the board, required audio/video participation, and a quorum physically present at the meeting location.  Because these rules are complex, most boards will likely continue relying on the traditional teleconference framework.

• Changes to emergency teleconferencing rules. SB 707 recasts the previous Assembly Bill 361 exception for remote meetings during a state of emergency, including now recognizing local emergencies declared by the agency itself as well as statewide emergencies.

• Social media rules. SB 707 continues the social media rules in the Brown Act, which had been set to expire January 1, 2026.  As a refresher, under those rules, Board members may use social media to discuss agency matters, provided a majority does not engage on the topic.  No board member may respond to, react to (e.g. “like” or “dislike”), or re-post another board member’s content.  In practice, when one board member posts on social media where all are present, the others must stay silent.

• Clarity regarding oral report of executive compensation. The Brown Act requires the board to make an oral report prior to taking final action on compensation of a local agency executive, including heads of departments or other similar administrative officers.  In our experience, charter school boards are accustomed to making verbal reports that summarize the proposed compensation for the CEO or Executive Director, prior to the board taking action on such compensation at regular meetings.  Now, the law is clear that this would also apply to the school’s Principal, CFO, Director of HR, or any other executive, but only if their contracts are approved by the school’s board of directors.

• Clarity regarding right to remove disruptive individuals. SB 707 confirms that agencies may mute and/or remove disruptive individuals from teleconferenced meetings if the board chair has issued a warning and the disruptive behavior does not promptly cease, effectively treating “Zoom bombers” the same as in-person disruptive individuals.

• Clarity regarding items already heard by committee. A board may forgo public comment on an item that has already been considered by a Brown Act-compliant committee consisting only of board members, unless: the item has substantially changed since the committee’s consideration; if a quorum of the committee did not meet in a singular physical location; or if the committee is focused on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, taxes or related spending proposals, or materials in public libraries.

The above changes apply to all local public agencies that are subject to the Brown Act, and for charter schools and many others, the above changes are the only ones that apply as a result of SB 707.

Additional Requirements for “Eligible Legislative Bodies” (Not Applicable to Charter Schools)

For larger cities, counties, and special districts, defined as “eligible legislative bodies” and which does not include charter schools, there are additional changes starting July 1, 2026 as follows:

• “Eligible legislative bodies” must allow members of the public to participate in board meetings (including public comment) via two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform. There are a few exceptions, including for board meetings held to attend a judicial or administrative proceeding to which the agency is a party, to inspect real property, to meet with elected or appointed officials, or to meet in an emergency situation as defined by the Brown Act.  Agencies can meet this requirement by including a Zoom or similar link for each meeting, but simply live-streaming the meeting is not adequate unless a telephonic link is also provided.

• “Eligible legislative bodies” must adopt a policy about how they will handle disruptions to telephonic or internet service during a meeting, including recessing the open session for one hour while the agency attempts to restore the service and adopting findings if they seek to continue a meeting and are not able to restore service.

• “Eligible legislative bodies” must translate agendas into applicable languages, i.e. a language spoken by 20% or more of the applicable population, unless 20% of that population also speaks English “very well.” The agency must also create a place for members of the public to post their own additional translations of the agenda.  SB 707 is clear that this agenda translation requirement does not extend to the full agenda packet.

• “Eligible legislative bodies” must also offer reasonable translation services for meetings themselves, which may include allowing or providing interpreters, allowing extra time for interpretation, or allowing individuals to bring translation equipment to meetings. Agencies must publish instructions on how to request translation assistance, and are protected from liability for inaccurate translation.

• “Eligible legislative bodies” must take various administrative actions to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented and non-English speaking communities, to participate in board meetings. These include but are not limited to: creating a webpage for board meetings; ensuring the agency has a meeting calendar; and inviting groups that do not traditionally participation in meetings to attend, e.g. news media.

As noted above, these additional changes for “eligible legislative bodies” are delayed until July 1, 2026, presumably to give those agencies time to come into compliance with the significant new requirements. While not widely applicable, it is worth noting that SB 707 also revises and recasts the alternative teleconferencing provisions applicable to neighborhood councils, community college student body associations, and student-run community college organizations.

Final Takeaway

While SB 707 introduces several clarifications and new processes, the traditional teleconferencing rules remain intact and will continue to be the most practical option for most boards.

If your school or agency needs help preparing for the 2026 changes or updating your policies, our team is here to assist.