Misinformation and accusations: The Brown Act
Ryley Niemi falsely accuses three members of the TVUSD School Board of violating the Brown Act during public comment at the Dec. 17 meeting of the Governing Board. TVUSD/YouTube
One Temecula Valley PAC Team
TEMECULA — During the meeting of the TVUSD School Board on Dec. 17, Ryley Niemi spoke directly to the board, alleging a Brown Act violation committed by an incumbent school board member and two future members of the board, prior to certification of the election.
He did so in an attempt to discredit the board’s recent vote to elect Trustee Melinda Anderson to the role of president and Trustee Emil Barham to the role of board clerk.
“It's okay to be honest about not knowing rather than spreading falsehood. While it is often said that honesty is the best policy, silence is the second best policy.” — Criss Jami
In perhaps the simplest forms of conspiracy-hounding, Niemi attempted to create a conspiracy based on something he claims to have witnessed, followed by a result he didn’t agree with, and then wildly throwing out an accusation of a violation of the Brown Act.
You can see the false accusation at 1:58.25 of the meeting on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I4F8CsmXrI
What Niemi claimed to see was Incumbent Trustee Steven Schwartz meeting with the then-not-yet-elected Anderson and Barham, dining at a public restaurant.
Niemi falsely claimed that because Anderson and Barham were leading in their respective races, they were essentially board members at that point (misinformation). And that because Schwartz nominated Anderson for the board president position and Barham voted along with him to elect her to the seat, a crime was committed (misinformation).
In this article we will break down the Brown Act, the rules and guidelines for adhering to the Brown Act, and just how damaging an accusation fabricated out of misinformation and driven by ignorance and lies is damaging to the public at large.
The Brown Act
The Ralph M. Brown Act is California's open meetings law that requires local government meetings to be transparent.
It governs local bodies such as city councils and school boards, mandating public notice of meetings and prohibiting secret sessions.
The law promotes democratic transparency by ensuring public access and opportunities for public comment.
The full text is available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chapter=9.&part=1.&lawCode=GOV&title=5.
History of the Brown Act
In 1951, San Francisco Chronicle reporter Mike Harris investigated local agency meetings and found widespread secret meetings despite public meeting laws. His exposé led to the creation of California's open-meeting law, drafted by Harris and Richard Carpenter of the League of California Cities.
Assembly Member Ralph M. Brown carried the bill, which was signed into law in 1953. The Brown Act has since evolved through amendments and court decisions, becoming a model for other open-meeting laws like the 1967 Bagley-Keene Act for state agencies.
Brown served in the Assembly (1942-1961) and as Speaker before becoming an appellate court justice. His enduring legacy is the law that brought transparency to government meetings.
WHAT ARE THE AGENDA POSTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE BROWN ACT?
BROWN ACT RESTRICTIONS ON COMMUNICATING AMONG BOARD MEMBERS
Q: Can board members use email, text messages, or social media to discuss board business with each other?
A: Yes, but with strict limitations:
Forwarded messages creating a "serial meeting" among a majority of members violate the Brown Act
A majority discussing district business through any communication method is considered an illegal meeting
This includes social media discussions of official business involving a majority
Q: Can board members use their personal emails for board business?
A: All electronic messages related to board business are considered public records, including:
Messages sent from personal devices or email accounts
Text messages
District email
The Brown Act applies equally to all forms of communication. Any messages about district business—even those from personal accounts—are subject to requests under the California Public Records Act.
Q: Is a candidate-elect subject to Brown Act meeting restrictions before being sworn into office?
A: Yes. According to to section 54952.1. of the Act
“Any person elected to serve as a member of a legislative body who has not yet assumed the duties of office shall conform his or her conduct to the requirements of this chapter and shall be treated for purposes of enforcement of this chapter as if he or she has already assumed office.”
Q: Can board members meet socially without violating the Brown Act?
A: Yes. The Brown Act defines a "meeting" as when a board majority gathers to discuss or act on matters within their jurisdiction. Social gatherings are allowed if board business isn't discussed. However, members should avoid appearing to conduct business, even in social settings, to maintain public trust.
Q: Did Trustee Wiersma violate the Brown Act by using intermediaries to influence Trustees Barham and Anderson regarding the board president vote?
A: Possibly. The Brown Act prohibits serial meetings, and Trustees Barham and Anderson have both accused Trustee Wiersma of using her contacts to influence their vote.
The Brown Act states that "a majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting... use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body."
Q: Did Steve Schwartz, Emil Barham, and Melinda Anderson violate the Brown Act by having a meal together in November ?
A: Likely not, as there is no evidence of board business discussion at the restaurant, especially since election results were not certified then. The main concern was about voting transparency for the board president selection.
At the meeting, Schwartz nominated Anderson to move past divisions in a new direction. Anderson emphasized her knowledge of parliamentary procedure to restore professionalism and civil debate to the board. Barham supported her nomination, citing concerns about the previous board's conduct and reckless disregard of legal advice. Wiersma and Komrosky offered no detailed rationale for Wiersma's candidacy. The process remained transparent, with all members explaining their votes publicly.
