(a)(1)Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2.
(2)(A)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative
body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee’s consideration of the item.
(B)Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if any of the following conditions are met:
(i)The item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body.
(ii)When considering the item, a quorum of the committee members did not participate from a singular physical location, that was clearly identified on the agenda, open to the public, and situated within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction.
(iii)The committee has primary subject matter jurisdiction, as defined by
the charter, an ordinance, a resolution, or any formal action of the legislative body that created the subsidiary body, that focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries, or taxes or related spending proposals. This clause shall not apply to an item if the local agency has adopted a law applicable to the meeting of the committee at which the item that was considered prohibits the committee from placing a limit on the total amount of time for public comment on the item.
(3)Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.
(b)(1)The legislative body of a local agency
may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), when the legislative body of a local agency limits time for public comment, the legislative body of a local agency shall provide at least twice the allotted time to a member of the public who utilizes a translator to ensure that non-English speakers receive the same opportunity to directly address the legislative body of a local agency.
(3)Paragraph (2) shall not apply if the legislative body of a local agency utilizes simultaneous translation equipment in a manner that allows the legislative body of a local agency to hear the translated public testimony simultaneously.
(c)The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.
Notes of Decisions
Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
· cites it 4× “( Gov. Code, § 54954.3, subd. (b)(1).) Third, neither version of the speech code contains any criminal sanction.”
Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
“Government Code section 54954.3 provides in part, “Every agenda for regular [public agency] meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s…”
Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936 F. Supp. 719 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
· cites it 2× “(Board's) selective enforcement of the policy was a violation of plaintiff's right to be free of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of a governmental regulation under the constitution of the United States; and (3) the policy is a violation of plaintiff's right publicly to…”
Choice-In-Educ. League v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
“” Government Code section 54954.3 provides in pertinent part: “(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s…”
Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2876 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
“” (Gov. Code, § 54954.3, subd. (a).) There is nothing in the record which supports the claim that Riverside holds “weekly public hearings” as Riverside claims and, more importantly, there is nothing in the record to suggest that it ever held a hearing on the “item of interest to…”
Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (Cal. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “(Gov. Code, § 54954.3, subd. (b)(1).) Third, neither version of the speech code contains any criminal sanction.”
Immigrant Legal Resources Ctr. v. City of McFarland (E.D. Cal. 2020).
“N-29-20 at 2–4 (suspending the physical presence requirement for public 20 meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic but urging public bodies “to adhere as closely as 21 reasonably possible” to the provisions of the Brown Act); see also Cal. Gov. Code § 54954.3 (a); 22 Cal. Civ.”
Spectrum Pac. West, LLC v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (S.D. Cal. 2025).
“Second, in violation of 21 Government Code section 54954.3, Defendants allegedly deprived Plaintiff a meaningful 22 opportunity to address the Board because it was denied access to core data and cost inputs 23 underlying the proposed fee.”
Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936 F. Supp. 718 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
· cites it 2× “s (Board’s) selective enforcement of the policy was a violation of plaintiffs right to be free of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of a governmental regulation under the constitution of the United States; and (3) the policy is a violation of plaintiffs right publicly to…”
— Cal. Government Code § 54954.3(a) — 2 cases
Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936 F. Supp. 719 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
“(Board's) selective enforcement of the policy was a violation of plaintiff's right to be free of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of a governmental regulation under the constitution of the United States; and (3) the policy is a violation of plaintiff's right publicly to…”
Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936 F. Supp. 718 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
“s (Board’s) selective enforcement of the policy was a violation of plaintiffs right to be free of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of a governmental regulation under the constitution of the United States; and (3) the policy is a violation of plaintiffs right publicly to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.