CC 05-20-2025 Late_Oral Communications (added 5-21-25)Written Comments
received for
Oral Communications
(Non-Agenda Items)
Note: Presentations, Supplemental Reports, and Written Communications for
agenda-related items are located in the Meeting Details under the specific
Agenda Item Number.
For additional details on submitting written comments, please visit the Public
Comments on the City Council Agenda page on the City website.
From:J Shearin
To:City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Brown Act violations on May 15, 2025 City Council meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 5:38:57 PM
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Please include this as part of Written Communications in the next possible City Council meeting.
Dear City Attorney Andrews, Acting City Manager Kapoor, and Cupertino City Councilmembers:
Provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act were violated during the Cupertino City Council Meeting of May 15, 2025.
Therefore, any and all actions taken at that meeting should be declared null and void immediately, including all resolutions
and votes.
The specific provisions that were violated relate to the remote teleconferencing of Councilmember Wang from the
Sheraton Stockholm, Tegelbacken 6, 101 23, 101 23 Stockholm, Sweden, Hotel Lobby as stated in the meeting agenda posted
in Cupertino. There are two specific violations:
Councilmember Wang’s teleconferencing setup did not allow the public to hear or testify in the meeting, as
required. As the lobby is currently undergoing a “full renovation”, it is also uncertain how Councilmember Wang was
able to teleconference in from the lobby portion of the hotel (see screenshot, below).
There was no posted public meeting notice in the teleconferencing location. The hotel confirmed that no agenda
was posted for the Council meeting (see screenshot, below).
Any one of these issues constitutes a Brown Act violation and must be addressed.
The requirements of the Brown Act are outlined in The Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies, by the
California Attorney General’s Office. This handbook is presented to each councilmember and commissioner in the City of
Cupertino along with a mandatory training session to review its concepts. I have quoted below the relevant sections that
the city must follow in its meetings.
The Brown Act defines the following as a teleconference meeting:
“A teleconference meeting is a meeting in which one or more members of the body attend the
meeting from a remote location via electronic means, transmitting audio or audio/video.” (page 14)
It further states,
Each teleconference meeting must be conducted in such a manner so as to protect the statutory and constitutional
rights of the public. Each teleconference meeting agenda must ensure the public’s right to testify at each
teleconference location in accordance with section 54954.3…The Act requires that each teleconference location
must be fully accessible to members of the public… Moreover, members of the public must be able to hear the
meeting and testify from each location. [emphasis mine] (page 14)
And further, “When a body elects to use teleconferencing, it must post an agenda at each teleconference location.” (page
14)
It should be noted that other Cupertino Councilmembers have teleconferenced into the regularly scheduled City Council
meetings. However, they have not violated the Brown Act law regarding teleconferencing, as the locations have been
publicly accessible without fees or restrictions; the teleconference setup allowed public participation and testimony from
that location (as shown in the Zoom feed, the public can clearly see the screen and hear the meeting); and the meeting
notice was publicly posted. The Brown Act specifically allows teleconferencing from personal homes as long as they are
opened to the public for the duration of the meeting. (page 14)
I, as an “interested person” (page 45) request that you immediately address these violations by declaring all actions at that
meeting null and void, having no effect on our city’s governance. I am making this request within the 90 day window that
the Brown Act specifies for a “written demand to the board to cure or correct the violation…” (page 46, specific timeline
provisions page 48).
Please notify me regarding your corrective action.
Thank you for your help with this matter, and your work on behalf of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino resident
From:J Shearin
To:City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Brown Act violations at the May 6, 2025 meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 5:26:43 PM
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.tiff
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please add this to Written Communications at the next possible City Council meeting.
Dear City Attorney Andrews, Acting City Manager Kapoor, and Cupertino City Councilmembers:
Provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act were violated during the Cupertino City Council Meeting of May 6, 2025.
Therefore, any and all actions taken at that meeting should be declared null and void immediately, including all
resolutions and votes.
The specific provisions that were violated relate to the remote teleconferencing of Councilmember Wang from the
Dubai Airport, United Arab Emirates, Terminal 3, Departures as stated in the meeting agenda posted in Cupertino.
There are three specific violations:
Councilmember Wang teleconferenced in from a location that was not accessible to the general public,
requiring a paid plane ticket to reach the physical location. Even if the argument is made that the public can
reach it through that purchase (which is not assured, as the required TSA Security checks may not allow a
person to do so), the cost of the required plane ticket would be considered a fee or tax for participation in
the meeting.
Councilmember Wang’s teleconferencing setup did not allow the public to hear or testify in the meeting, as
required.
There was no posted public meeting notice in the teleconferencing location, as the Dubai airport has strict
regulations which do not permit posting signs, flyers, or any other kind of notices in public areas.
Any one of these issues constitutes a Brown Act violation and must be addressed.
The requirements of the Brown Act are outlined in The Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies, by the
California Attorney General’s Office. This handbook is presented to each councilmember and commissioner in the
City of Cupertino along with a mandatory training session to review its concepts. I have quoted below the relevant
sections that the city must follow in its meetings.
The Brown Act defines the following as a teleconference meeting:
“A teleconference meeting is a meeting in which one or more members of the body attend the
meeting from a remote location via electronic means, transmitting audio or audio/video.” (page 14)
It further states,
Each teleconference meeting must be conducted in such a manner so as to protect the statutory and
constitutional rights of the public. Each teleconference meeting agenda must ensure the public’s right to
testify at each teleconference location in accordance with section 54954.3…The Act requires that each
teleconference location must be fully accessible to members of the public… Moreover, members of the
public must be able to hear the meeting and testify from each location. [emphasis mine] (page 14)
And further, “When a body elects to use teleconferencing, it must post an agenda at each teleconference location.”
(page 14)
It should be noted that other Cupertino Councilmembers have teleconferenced into the regularly scheduled City
Council meetings. However, they have not violated the Brown Act law regarding teleconferencing, as the locations
have been publicly accessible without fees or restrictions; the teleconference setup allowed public participation
and testimony from that location (as shown in the Zoom feed, the public can clearly see the screen and hear the
meeting); and the meeting notice was publicly posted. The Brown Act specifically allows teleconferencing from
personal homes as long as they are opened to the public for the duration of the meeting. (page 14)
I, as an “interested person” (page 45) request that you immediately address these violations by declaring all actions
at that meeting null and void, having no effect on our city’s governance. I am making this request within the 90
day window that the Brown Act specifies for a “written demand to the board to cure or correct the violation…”
(page 46, specific timeline provisions page 48).
Please notify me regarding your corrective action.
Thank you for your help with this matter, and your work on behalf of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino Resident