We Believe The City of Long Beach Is Violating Newly Enacted State Law By Preventing You From Speaking On City Council Agenda Items Remotely By Telephone Or Computer. Here's How To Fix That.

LBReport.com

Editorial
We Believe The City of Long Beach Is Violating Newly Enacted State Law By Preventing You From Speaking On City Council Agenda Items Remotely By Telephone Or Computer. Here's How To Fix That.

If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you,
who would?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. Support 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.

(Oct. 20, 2021, 8:15 p.m.) -- The City of Long Beach is preventing you, your neighbors and your neighborhood and civic groups from speaking on City Council agenda items by telephone or computer. LBREPORT.com believes this violates a recently enacted state law.

AB 361, signed into law on Sept. 16 by Governor Gavin Newsom, provides that when cities make certain findings about public health -- as the Long Beach City Council did by an adopted resolution on Oct. 12 -- it must comply with AB 361's statutory provisions which include:

...SEC. 3.1. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54953. (e)...(2) A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision shall do all of the following:..
(B) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option....[emphasis added]
...(E) The legislative body shall not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time...
...(G) (i) A legislative body that provides a timed public comment period for each agenda item shall not close the public comment period for the agenda item, or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), to provide public comment until that timed public comment period has elapsed.
(ii) A legislative body that does not provide a timed public comment period, but takes public comment separately on each agenda item, shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to register pursuant to subparagraph (F), or otherwise be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment.
(iii) A legislative body that provides a timed general public comment period that does not correspond to a specific agenda item shall not close the public comment period or the opportunity to register, pursuant to subparagraph (F), until the timed general public comment period has elapsed.

Yes, AB 361 gives the public greater public speaking rights in remote testimony than LB Mayor Garcia and incumbent Councilmembers allow at their in-person meetings.

In our view, the Oct. 19 City Council agenda (the first Council meeting after the Council adopted its Oct. 12 resolution) violated AB 361 by failing to "provide for all persons to attend via a call-in option or internet based service option." At this point, there's no indication that the City plans to change its procedure for the next regularly scheduled Council meeting in November.

Instead, on Oct. 12, the City Council adopted a resolution to implement AB 361 that included sneaky text that tries to avoid giving the public the remote speaking ability that AB 361 envisions.

[City Council resolution text]
...Section 3. The City Council recognizes that City legislative bodies may have varying circumstances and considerations and, as such, hereby authorizes the Council, and City commissions, committees, boards, or other bodies subject to the Brown Act, to opt for in-person and/or hybrid (a combination of virtual and in-person) meetings to the extent possible, including but not limited to meetings that may be of a quasi-judicial nature or those bodies that have already been meeting in person as circumstances have allowed. [emphasis added]...

[Scroll down for further.]