Sac'to Bill Proposes Increased Digital-Era Public Speaking Rights At Council Meetings
Would also curtail orchestrated speakers from cutting off opposing views
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.
(April 17, 2021, 10:45 p.m.) -- A Sacramento bill supported by a lengthy list of open government and mainly progressive policy groups proposes to require City Halls statewide to make permanent and enhance digital-era public speaking opportunities at local government meetings, including City Council meetings.
AB 339, introduced on January 28, 2021 by Assemblymembers Alex Lee (D, Milpitas) and Cristina Garcia (D, Downey/Bell Gardens), now joined by co-authored by Assemblymembers Arambula, Cooley and Robert Rivas) would also require local government bodies to allow telephonic public speakers beyond an arbitrary cut off number.
The latter issue has become timely locally after Mayor Robert Garcia's allies (including his brother and some of the Mayor's appointees (April 6) and a developer's advocate (April 13) filled all then-available speaker slots, effectively preventing speakers with contrary views from being heard. LB Councilmembers remained mum as the City Clerk defended the limit..
AB 339 provides in pertinent part: "Registration for public comment period is permitted, so long as instructions to register are posted, members of the public are able to register over the telephone and in person, and registration remains open until the comment period has finished for that agenda item. Information collected for registration purposes shall be limited to name, telephone number, and county of residence."
Other salient portions include:
[Scroll down for further.]
.
e
54953.(b) All meetings shall include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a telephonic option and an internet-based service option. For the purposes of this chapter, "internet-based service option" means a service or platform that allows two-way video and audio participation through the internet.
...[T]he legislative body of a local agency may use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law...
If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall...conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency...The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.
(5) (A) Unless there are any laws that prohibit in-person government meetings in the case of a declared state of emergency, including a public health emergency, all meetings shall include an in-person public comment opportunity, wherein members of the public can report to a designated site to give public comment in person. The location of the designated site and any relevant instructions on in-person commenting shall be included with the public posting of the agenda.
(B) All meetings shall provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed legislation, both in person and remotely via a telephonic and an internet-based service option, and ensure the opportunity for the members of the public participating via a telephonic or an internet-based option to comment on agenda items with the same time allotment as a person attending a meeting in person.
(C) Registration for public comment period is permitted, so long as instructions to register are posted, members of the public are able to register over the telephone and in person, and registration remains open until the comment period has finished for that agenda item. Information collected for registration purposes shall be limited to name, telephone number, and county of residence.
Sponsor
Sponsor
AB 339's authors initially proposed to end a double-standard and apply its provisions to state bodies as well as local government entities, but that provision apparently encountered Sac'to pushback and was removed.
Sponsor
Sponsor
AB 339 is supported by the First Amendment Coalition and, with a lengthy list of groups, submitted a joint letter in support of AB 339 at this link.
However a week earlier, the League of California Cities (a privately run advocacy group to which the City of LB pays dues), joined by the California Special Districts Association (CSDA), California State Association of Counties (CSAC), Urban Counties of California (UCC), Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD), Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), Community College League of California (CCLC), California Downtown Association (CDA), and Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM), signed an opposition letter which can be viewed ,a href=
"https://ct3.blob.core.windows.net/21blobs/7f563b85-a91c-4a84-a348-01a0326f87ff" target="_blank">here.. The opposition letter states in part that AB 339 "will purposefully add significant unfunded mandates on local public agencies by requiring public agencies to provide both call-in and internet-based options, in addition to in-person options, for members of the public to attend and comment during any public meeting."
Sponsor
The bill's first hearing (no date set yet) will be before the Assembly's Committee on Local Government. Its 8 current members include six Democrats and two Republicans: Assemblywoman Cecelia Aguiar-Curry (Chair, D), Vice chair Tom Lackey (R), Assemblymembers Richard Bloom (D), Tasha Boerner Horvath (D), James C. Ramos (D), Luz Rivas (D), Robert Rivas (D) and Randy Voepel (R).
April 18, 2021, 10:20 p.m.: Opposition letter b League of CA Cities added.
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.
