Understanding “Disruption” Under SB 707: Technical Failures vs. Disruptive Participation

Similar Labels, Different Meanings

Senate Bill (“SB”) 707 dramatically updated and expanded the Ralph M. Brown Act’s requirements for public access, teleconferencing, and meeting procedures. Ambitious in scope, the statute is far from a model of statutory clarity. SB 707 uses similar terms across different provisions to describe related but distinct concepts. For example, the statute defines multiple categories, e.g., “eligible legislative body,” “eligible subsidiary body,” and “eligible multijurisdictional body,” that sound alike but are governed by separate definitions and rule sets.

This article focuses on the statute’s different uses of the term “disruption.” Consistent with the Brown Act’s historical use of the term, portions of SB 707 use “disruption” to refer to public meeting conduct that actually impedes or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and authorizes removal of disruptive individuals. In other parts of the statute, “disruption” instead refers to technological failures that interrupt remote public access and participation during certain teleconference meetings. 

Traditional Brown Act “Disruption”

Historically, the Ralph M. Brown Act left it to First Amendment case law to shape the legal contours of the meeting disruption threshold. Courts have construed disruption narrowly as conduct that interferes with a legislative body’s ability to proceed, not speech that is merely critical or offensive. A body may remove a speaker only when the conduct impedes the meeting (e.g., interrupting, refusing to yield, or becoming unduly repetitive). Later cases confirm that tone- or civility-based rules risk unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination unless tied to actual meeting disruption or interference. 

Effective 2023, the Brown Act defines “disrupting” in functional terms as behavior that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting. The statute authorizes the presiding officer to warn and then remove an individual engaging in such conduct, except in cases involving force or a true threat of force.

Effective January 1, 2026, SB 707 extended the Brown Act’s existing conduct-based disruption and removal framework to remote participation by clarifying that disruption and removal authority applies to teleconferenced meetings and to individuals participating through a two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform.

A Different “Disruption” Concept for “Eligible Legislative Body” Meetings

Although the Brown Act traditionally uses “disruption” to describe meeting conduct, SB 707 also uses the term to describe technological failures that affect remote public access for certain “eligible legislative body” meetings. These requirements apply only to “eligible legislative bodies,” including city councils in cities with populations of at least 30,000 or located in counties with populations of at least 600,000; county boards of supervisors in counties with populations of at least 30,000; and certain special district boards meeting specified staffing, revenue, and website thresholds. 

By July 1, 2026, eligible legislative bodies generally must provide remote public participation via (1) a two-way audiovisual platform and two-way telephonic service; or (2) two-way telephonic service only. By the same date, eligible legislative bodies must adopt a policy addressing disruptions of telephonic or internet service during meetings subject to the statute’s two-way remote participation requirements. The eligible legislative body must approve the policy at a noticed public meeting, in open session, and outside the consent calendar.

If a disruption prevents the public from attending or observing the meeting through the required two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform, the eligible legislative body must recess the open session for at least one hour and make a good faith effort to restore service, although it may meet in closed session for items on the agenda during that period. If service cannot be restored, the body may reconvene the meeting without remote public access only after adopting findings by roll call vote that it made good faith efforts to restore service in accordance with its adopted policy and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.

The statute does not define what constitutes a “good faith effort” to restore service. As a result, agencies likely will need to make context-specific judgments depending on the nature of the disruption, available staffing or technical support, platform capabilities, and whether reasonable alternative methods of restoring remote public access are available under the circumstances.

Similarly, the statute provides little guidance regarding the finding that “the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.” The statute does not identify factors governing that determination, leaving substantial discretion to the eligible legislative body during a disruption.

The statute’s disruption policy requirement raises similar questions. Although eligible legislative bodies must adopt a policy addressing procedures for recessing and reconvening meetings and efforts to restore service, the statute does not specify the level of technical or operational detail required. Practically, agencies may wish to avoid unnecessarily detailed policies because procedural requirements beyond the statute’s core standards could create additional compliance issues if circumstances prevent strict adherence during a disruption.

Given the statute’s limited guidance on the required level of detail, agencies may reasonably take different approaches to implementing these policies. Some agencies may prefer policies closely tracking the statutory language, while others may adopt more detailed operational procedures tailored to their technology, staffing, or meeting practices.

The statute does not prescribe a particular form for adopting the policy. In practice, agencies may adopt the policy by resolution, minute order, or similar legislative action.

Alternative Teleconferencing “Disruption” for Legislative Bodies

Effective January 1, 2026, Government Code section 54953.8 separately uses the term “disruption” in the context of teleconference meetings conducted pursuant to that section in seven limited circumstances. In that setting, if a disruption prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or, if within the local agency’s control, prevents members of the public from offering public comment through those options, the legislative body cannot take further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda. 

The legislative body may resume taking action only after remote public access is restored. Unlike the separate disruption framework applicable to eligible legislative bodies, these provisions do not require adoption of a disruption policy or provide a recess-and-reconvening framework permitting the meeting to continue if remote public access has not been restored. 

Conclusion

SB 707’s competing uses of the term “disruption” reflect a broader tension within the statute itself: the bill attempts to standardize and expand remote public access while simultaneously creating multiple overlapping procedural frameworks with substantial operational ambiguity. Careful attention to statutory context and structure will be critical as agencies implement SB 707’s broadly applicable January 1, 2026 provisions and the statute’s separate July 1, 2026 requirements for eligible legislative bodies.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP regularly advises clients on legal matters relating to public law, including transparency and Brown Act compliance.

All materials have been prepared for general information purposes only to permit you to learn more about our firm, our services and the experience of our attorneys. The information presented is not legal advice, is not to be acted on as such, may not be current and is subject to change without notice.