The Cupertino City Council may have violated California’s open meeting law by allowing one of its members to teleconference during public meetings, according to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury.
“Cupertino’s current approach undermines public access, is inconsistent with the statutory framework of the Brown Act, and places the convenience of the teleconferencing councilmember above the rights of the public,” stated a civil grand jury report released last month.
The Brown Act allows city councilmembers to use teleconferencing, but that participation is subject to specific statutory safeguards intended to preserve the public’s right to observe and participate in meetings of elected officials. The county’s civil grand jury report specifically critiqued Cupertino’s rule on teleconferencing and the controversy stemming from Councilmember Ray Wang’s repeatedly attending meetings remotely. According to the civil grand jury report, Wang travels regularly for personal business. In 2025, teleconferencing was used at 14 regular or special Cupertino City Council meetings, accounting for one-third of all city council meetings last year.
The report noted that in Cupertino, if a teleconferencing councilmember must leave a meeting due to a scheduling conflict, technical issues or for any other reason, the city council meeting must end. This happened at least three times in 2025. Twice, a meeting ended because Wang had to catch a plane. The third instance occurred on Dec. 2, 2025, when Wang terminated his connection during a study session on a housing project. According to the report, Wang objected to voting to appoint negotiators, arguing that the agenda did not clearly notify the public that a vote would occur, which would be a Brown Act violation. The law states that a publicly elected body cannot make decisions on issues that aren’t properly noticed to the public.
The Brown Act doesn’t specify rules for adjourning a meeting, said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition. However, the Brown Act does state that the public should be able to participate from the remote location where an elected official is logged into a meeting. So when Wang left the meeting, it forced the meeting to end because it prevented the public from participating from his location.
Wang subsequently apologized for leaving the meeting, saying that his laptop battery had died and he was unable to find a working outlet, rendering him unable to log back in to the meeting.
The civil grand jury also expressed concern about Cupertino’s rules for listing the location of the teleconferencing council member. According to the Brown Act, the city must list the location from which they are participating on the agenda and make sure it is publicly accessible. However, the city has repeatedly listed incomplete locations or places that may not be publicly accessible, like private hotel rooms and airport terminals.
“Requiring a member of the public to go to a council member’s private room is not in keeping with the spirit of the Brown Act,” the report stated. “Further, if the hotel requires the guests to use room keys to access the elevator, as many do, private rooms are not accessible to the public as required by the Brown Act.”
Loy said it could be “a pretty serious Brown Act problem” if a city council member regularly participates remotely in council meetings while they’re traveling on personal business.
“Part of holding elected office is being accountable and responsive to the people,” Loy said. “It’s about the basic requirements of holding office. Are you prepared to put the people first and be accountable and responsive and prioritize your service to the people that elected you?”
The report noted that Cupertino’s interpretation of open meeting law could allow cities to weaponize the Brown Act, intentionally or not. According to the Brown Act’s teleconferencing provisions, a quorum must be physically present in the city when teleconferencing is used. However, the civil grand jury argued that allowing meetings to end if a teleconferencing council member leaves creates “a non-statutory condition for the continuation of a meeting” and can unlawfully curtail public comment, interrupt deliberation on agendized items, force delays in city business and undermine the transparency and openness required by the Brown Act.
“This practice elevates the convenience of the teleconferencing member over the public’s right to transparency and participation,” the report states. “It also creates a mechanism by which a member can intentionally halt discussion, block votes or disrupt the public’s business.”
To address this, Cupertino has implemented a requirement that members of the public who want to speak from a teleconferencing location provide at least five hours’ advance notice. However, the civil grand jury criticized this move because those who want to speak at a city council meeting can simply show up to council chambers.
The report recommended that teleconferencing by council members only be permitted from locations that are genuinely publicly accessible, and that the city revoke its requirement that public meetings must end when a teleconferencing council member leaves and shift accountability to maintain public meeting compliance onto the teleconferencing council member.
This isn’t the first time the county has scrutinized Cupertino City Hall. In 2022, the civil grand jury found evidence of mutual distrust between Cupertino City Council members and city staff, which led to a long line of resignations and fill-ins in the city manager’s position.