DISCUSS options for meetings in 2023.

Amendments to the Brown Act complicate how TAMC can hold meetings starting in March 2023. The Executive Committee discussed meeting options on February 1 and voted to recommend the Board adopt a policy to follow traditional Brown Act rules to ensure a quorum of voting members at Board, Executive Committee, and Rail Policy Committee meetings, that will be discussed at the February 22 Board meeting.

Financial impacts of returning to in-person meetings are included in the Agency budget for meeting administration. Some meeting locations may incur a cost for reservations. There are also administrative costs associated with the tracking of a quorum and ensuring remote locations follow Brown Act rules of being available to the public, connected to the videoconference, and are posted appropriately.

Until March 2023, Agency Board and Committee meetings can continue to be held via remote conferencing under the Governor's declared state of emergency, which he has announced will terminate on February 28, 2023. Starting in March, TAMC will resume in-person meetings, following the rules for hybrid remote/in-person participation pursuant to the Brown Act. Staff has worked to identify meeting rooms that can be used for Board and Committee meetings to enable hybrid options for all meetings.

The remote option under the traditional Brown Act is allowed so long as the agenda is posted at all in-person locations, and all those locations are accessible to the public, and the meeting location is posted on the agenda at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2449 revised the Brown Act rules for remote participation that restricts the way that Board or Committee members may participate remotely from a non-publicly accessible location. First, any such member must notify the Board or Committee in advance of the justification for needing to participate remotely, strictly limited to two categories: "just cause" and "emergency circumstances". This type of Board or Committee member remote participation is limited to 20% of the meetings, meaning no more than one Committee meeting, per year, per member, as the Measure X Citizens Oversight Committee meets four times per year. 

AB 2449 also requires that, to teleconference remotely at a non-publicly accessible location, there be a physical quorum in a single location in the agency's jurisdiction (Monterey County). Consequently, any Board/Committee member participating remotely, either through the traditional Brown Act or AB 2449, would not count toward that quorum requirement. Note that this does not affect the more general need for a quorum for purposes of holding the meeting.

On February 1, the Executive Committee discussed the pros and cons of using the provisions under AB 2449 and how that could complicate and possibly prevent meetings from securing a quorum. The Committee discussed the option of using both the traditional Brown Act and AB 2449 remote participation rules, the option of using only AB 2449 (and not allowing remote participation except under those emergency/ just cause circumstances), or using only the traditional Brown Act (allowing remote participation for Board/Committee members from publicly available, noticed locations).

The Committee voted to recommend the Board adopt a policy that the Board, Executive Committee, and Rail Policy Committee would only use the traditional Brown Act rules for remote participation for voting members. Non-voting members, members of the public, and staff will still be able to participate from any location.

The other Committees - the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the Measure X Citizens Oversight Committee - all have their own bylaws, but may follow the Board's lead in this matter.

Below are the options the Executive Committee discussed in developing the recommendation for this policy for member teleconferencing:

1. Option #1: Members may use either AB 2449 or traditional Brown Act teleconferencing.
   • Pros: The most flexible option. Members can choose which method suits them in a particular instance.
   • Cons: Difficult to administer and track. Complications, potentially involving the meeting quorum and/or the AB 2449 quorum, may arise if members take advantage of both methods in a single meeting. For example, a member that teleconferences under the traditional Brown Act counts toward a quorum for the meeting and voting purposes, but would not count toward the in-person quorum requirement that would allow other members to teleconference under AB 2449.
2. Option #2: Members may only use AB 2449 teleconferencing.
   • Pros: More simple than Option #1; avoids complications from the interaction of AB 2449 and traditional Brown Act teleconferencing methods.
   • Cons: Less flexibility. At least one Board member has expressed an interest in using traditional Brown Act teleconferencing for the Rail Policy and Executive Committee meetings.
3. Option #3: Members may only use traditional Brown Act teleconferencing.
   • Pros: More simple than Option #1 and more flexible than Option #2. Avoids any complications from using both methods. Reduces staff time/expense on tracking.
   • Cons: Does not address emergency situations where a member needs to teleconference at the last minute and is unable to timely agendize the remote location and/or has issues with opening that location to the public.

Option #3 is the easiest to administer method that would 1) be the simplest; 2) avoid tricky quorum issues and complex tracking requirements; and 3) still allow members to teleconference without numerical or justification limits. Finally, although Option #3 does not address emergency situations, alternates could be used in many cases to mitigate this issue.