Conducting agency business in public can be complicated. It requires staff, administrators, and board members to strictly adhere to ever-changing laws, impacting meetings, communications, timelines, and use of technology. As general counsel, Lozano Smith attorneys join alongside publicly elected boards, and routinely advise on the most pressing governance issues, including:
- Brown Act
- Public Records Act
- Political Reform Act
- California Voting Rights Act
- Conflicts of interest
- Gifts and perks
- Elections
- Ethics and board service
- E-Communication and open government
- Board/Administration: roles & responsibilities
- Public Safety
Effective Governance Workshop
Recognizing the need for leaders to remain well-informed of critical issues while successfully conducting the public’s business, Lozano Smith created a cutting-edge workshop for board members and City Council members. This workshop walks through practical strategies for effective governance, including:
- Allowable closed session topics
- Maintaining confidentiality of closed session discussions
- Regular and special meetings of the board
- Board bylaws
- The Public's Role at Board Meetings
- Establishing Positive Relationships
- Regular and Special Meetings of the Board
- Board Member Conduct and Liability
- Effective Communication Between Board Members
- Tips for Effective Communication with the Public
Brown Act
We regularly advise clients on the open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and routinely provide individualized trainings to address specific needs of our clients. We have also successfully defended Brown Act suits at the trial and appellate levels. For example, Duval v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902 established the principle that a legislative body may conduct comprehensive personnel evaluations in closed session, including a discussion of evaluation criteria and setting goals for future performance.
The firm also publishes annual handbooks and materials available at no cost for clients to use in understanding and complying with the Brown Act.
Public Records Act
We assist our clients in responding to Public Records Act requests from receipt of an initial demand through completion. Our attorneys and paralegals routinely deal with unique issues such as requests for salary or personnel information, electronic documents, documents related to closed-session meetings or pending litigation. All Lozano Smith attorneys are well versed in the Public Records Act and remain abreast of recent legislation and case law, understanding how each impacts our client’s obligations to maintain and disclose public records.
Conflicts of Interest
We frequently train and advise clients, including the elected board, regarding a wide range of conflicts of interest and ethics issues. Often, we counsel public agencies on: understanding public officials’ obligations to disclose their economic interests; identifying conflicts of interest; abstaining from participating in certain governmental decisions; and properly disclosing potential conflicts at public meetings.
Board Counsel and Support
Lozano Smith attorneys, as general counsel, guide and support public elected boards through creation and implementation of board policies, media relations, communication with the public, election issues, political activity, and conflict of interest issues, including the proper conduct of candidate and ballot measure elections. The firm’s attorneys advise on many election-related topics, including:
- Timing and conduct of elections, election contests and voter registration issues
- Trustee elections, including moving to by-trustee area elections
- Restrictions on use of agency equipment and media for political purposes
- Political activity on campus by board members, staff, and third parties
- Guidelines for mass mailings sent at public expense
- Lobbying and campaign finance regulation
First Amendment Does Not Protect Speech Occurring During Official Duties and Aimed at Students
October 21, 2026 Number 28The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently upheld that a public school employee’s speech falls outside First Amendment protection when it occurs within the course of performing their official duties and is directed at students. Theis v. InterMountain Education Service District - Board of Directors (9th Cir. 2026) 182 F.4th 1091 serves as a reminder of the line between public employees’ private expression, and speech attributa...
The Only Game in Town: Government Claims Act Controls Local Tax Refund Claims
October 7, 2026Number 27The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Government Claims Act (GCA) preempts administrative procedures enacted by local public entities for tax refund claims because the California Legislature enacted the GCA to ensure uniform treatment of claims for money or damages throughout the State.The Genesis of the LawsuitIn Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC v. City of Carson (Cal. 2026) 347 Cal.Rptr.3d 88, 91, the plaintiff/appellant oil refinery operators (col...
Court Rules CPRA’s ‘Promptly Available’ Standard is Flexible, Not Fixed
July 6, 2026 Number 19In Voice of San Diego v. San Diego Unified School District (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 923, as modified (May 27, 2026) , California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held the California Public Records Act (CPRA) does not impose a fixed deadline such as “days or a few weeks” for agencies to produce requested records. Instead, whether an agency has acted “promptly” depends on specific facts and circumstances of each request. This decisi...
Follow up on SB 707: Local Educational Agencies Are Not Subject to Certain New Brown Act Meeting Requirements
June 24, 2026Number 18 While Senate Bill (SB) 707 introduced significant changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), as discussed in our 2025 Client News Brief Number 59, not all changes applied equally to all public agencies. This has caused some confusion. Only “eligible legislative bodies” defined as a city council, a county board of supervisors within a particular population size, or a board of directors of a special district having an internet website satisfyin...
California Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Review Public Agency Conduct Under the Public Records Act
February 18, 2026Number 7On January 15, 2026, in City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (2026) 19 Cal.5th 38, the California Supreme Court clarified that enforcement orders under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) are not limited to compelling the production of improperly withheld records. Rather, courts may under certain circumstances also review and adjudicate the adequacy of public agencies’ record searches and document review, even when the requested records no longer exist.&n...
New Laws Expand Financial Disclosure Requirements and May Allow Public Campaign Funding
January 7, 2026 Number 1 Recent legislation signed by Governor Newsom provides significant amendments to the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Political Reform Act). Assembly Bill (AB) 1286 requires public agency officials to disclose accepted job offers from employers on a newly published attachment to their Form 700s. Subject to voter approval, Senate Bill (SB) 42 would allow candidates to use limited public funds for campaigns, which is currently prohibited.Background The Politica...
New California Laws Affecting Groundwater Sustainability Agencies: AB 293 and AB 709
January 7, 2026 Number 2 Governor Newsom signed two bills this past October that directly impact California’s Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs). Assembly Bill (AB) 293 requires GSAs to modify their websites on or before January 1, 2026, to include information on their board of directors and executives. AB 709 clarifies that GSA coordination agreements may be amended outside of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) review cycle. Assembly Bill 293 AB 293 see...
