"...[T]he most important office, and the one which all of us can and should fill, is that of private citizen. The duties of the office of private citizen cannot under a republican form of government be neglected without serious injury to the public." Louis D. Brandeis (1903), painting by Norman Rockwell (1943)

We believe it deserves a modest amendment/tweak to the draft ordinance text on Sept. 3 and 10 to protect the public's right to participate in LB Council proceedings.

The draft ordinance text (agenda item 28 on the Sept. 3 City Council agenda includes the following draft text:

...C. Public Comment for Agenda Items.

1. Each person desiring to address the City Council on an agenda item shall submit their name in writing to the City Clerk prior to the time that the Mayor, or other presiding officer, calls for the agenda item to be taken up for consideration. At that time, the speakers list for said agenda item will be closed and speakers will be called to speak at a time deemed appropriate by the Mayor, or presiding officer. [emphasis added]

Although some legislative bodies (including the L.A. County Board of Supervisors and L.A. County Metro) require the public to a submit-a-card/sign-up to speak to agenda items, the LB draft ordinance goes further by imposing a "sign up or shut up" rule. It would create a forfeiture of the public's right to speak to Council agenda items unless they're signed up before the moment the item is called -- a time the public can't know in advance because another so-called "streamlining" rule enables the Mayor without Council objection to move agenda items and take them up as he wishes.

The draft text would disserve informed Council discussion by preventing speakers -- who might not have initially sought to speak -- from rebutting or correcting misstatements made by earlier speakers. (Other speakers could do so only by foregoing portions of their planned testimony that may already be cut in half on major items under another "streamlining" rule.)

For purposes of this editorial, we're not addressing the question of whether the Mayor/Council can legally do this under the Brown Act. It's undeniable that no law requires them to do this, meaning the best remedy now is to persuade the Mayor/Council not to do this.

The remedy is a very modest text tweak. It specifies that after all members of the public who've signed up have been heard, the Mayor or presiding chair shall ask if any others wish to speak, invite them to be heard and then close public testimony. Problem solved.

Accordingly, the proper Council motion on Sept. 3 is to amend the draft ordinance text section C1 to strike the text "the speakers list for said agenda item will be closed" and replace it with "the Mayor shall inquire if other members of the public wish to speak and call those who wish to do so."

[Scroll down for further.]

LBREPORT.com recommends cutting-and-pasting the text below (after customizing it as you may wish). Email it to your Council member's City Hall office. AND use Facebook's message system send a copy to the incumbent via his/her Facebook page (most incumbents have them.) AND feel free to share this article on your area's Nextdoor stream and invite your neighbors to join in. (If anyone tries to block posting this article on a social network, please inform LBREPORT.com right away via email to mail@LBReport.com or via private message to LBREPORT.com's Facebook page.)

If you belong to a neighborhood group, contact your group's leadership and urge them to send an email supporting the text amendment/tweak that will protect your group's rights. Remind them the first vote is Sept. 3 and the second is Sept.; 10. If they claim it's "at the last minute," remind them that this issue hasn't been a secret; they've had plenty of time to do something on their own; we're just showing what can be easily done now.

Here's our suggested text; customize it as you wish:

Dear Councilmember ______________"

I am a taxpaying constituent protective of my rights to address you and your City Council colleagues when the Council agenda includes items that affect my neighborhood, my tax dollars and our city. Regarding Agenda Item 28 at the Sept. 3 City Council meeting, I ask that you amend the draft ordinance text section C1 to strike the text that "the speakers list for said agenda item will be closed" and replace it with "the Mayor shall inquire if other members of the public wish to speak on the agenda item and call those who wish to do so." Although I appreciate the digital opportunity to communicate with you, there are no substitutes (including "e-comment" or social networks) for my right to speak at public Council meetings on matters affecting me, my neighborhood and our city. I urge you to make the modest text amendment requested above.

Thank you.

s/ ____________

Please :cc LBREPORT.com on your communication (mail@LBReport.com) and let us know what response(s) you receive.

LBREPORT.com also believes other reforms are overdue regarding the public's rights at City Council meetings. These include restoring the public's right to agendize items for Council action (instead of relegating taxpayers to no-action "public comment on non-agendied items") and restoring public's previously respected ability to use the taxpayer-paid Council Chamber's video equipment to illustrate one's testimony on non-hearing agenda items (a genuine efficiency measure since one picture can tell a thousand words.) LB residents had those rights but lost them through inattentiveness and silence. Elections are the opportunity for the public to show that those rights matter and voters want people in office who respect them and not scorn them.

It's simply not "streamlining" to needlessly install additional barriers to the public's right to be heard. If LB Council incumbents don't grasp this, candidates seeking to succeed them in Council districts 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 can and should publicly commit that within 90 days of taking office they'll agendize an item to start the process of restoring public rights at LB City Council meetings that LB residents had but no longer have.

Cynics believe most voters don't care about wonky matters like this. We disagree. We think voters do understand the Brandeis principle quoted at the start of this editorial -- that the most important office in the land is that of private citizen. Long Beach shouldn't belong to City Hall lobbyists, developers and other officially-favored interest groups while their Councilmembers tell taxpayers to sit down and be quiet.

We think that's very well understood by many voters in Long Beach now.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.