California Senate debates SB 470 on remote participation in state meetings

The California Assembly Governmental Organization Committee convened on July 9, 2025, to discuss Senate Bill 470, which aims to modernize the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act by enhancing remote participation options for state boards and commissions. The bill seeks to address the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding public engagement in government meetings.

Key provisions of SB 470 include allowing state boards and commissions the choice to either continue using existing meeting protocols or adopt new remote participation guidelines. If boards opt for remote participation, they must ensure that a majority of members are present in person at the main location, and they must also allow public participation remotely. The bill mandates that remote participants keep their cameras on during meetings, countering claims that it would permit participation with cameras off. Additionally, it removes the requirement for remote participants to disclose their home addresses, enhancing privacy for individuals with disabilities or those living alone.

Supporters of the bill, including Ethan Rarick from the Little Hoover Commission and Aaron Carruthers from the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, emphasized that remote participation has led to increased public attendance and engagement. They noted that the flexibility provided by remote options is crucial for individuals with caregiving responsibilities or disabilities, allowing them to participate in government processes that would otherwise be challenging.

However, the bill faced opposition from various groups, including the California News Publishers Association and the First Amendment Coalition. Critics argue that SB 470 could undermine transparency and accountability by reducing the requirement for in-person public engagement. They expressed concerns that allowing more remote participation for board members might lead to less meaningful interaction between the public and officials.

The committee discussed the balance between facilitating access for individuals with disabilities and maintaining the integrity of public meetings. Some members raised questions about the potential impact on civic engagement and the importance of in-person interactions in democratic processes.

Ultimately, the committee voted to pass SB 470 to the appropriations committee, with further discussions anticipated as the bill progresses. The ongoing debate highlights the challenges of adapting public meeting laws to modern technology while ensuring that democratic principles are upheld.