| (June 30, 2021, 5:55 a.m.) -- Starting with the July 6 City Council meeting, the Long Beach City Clerk's office will end the public's ability to speak by telephone on City Council items (a procedure begun when City Hall was closed during the COVID-19 pandemic) unless (a) a City Council majority directs the City Clerk to continue to allow telephonic public testimony or (b) a Sacramento bill, AB 339 (previously reported by LBREPORT.com here and here) passes that would require cities and counties with more 250,000 residents (15 cities and 26 counties) to continue the telephonic practice.
Long Beach Third district City Councilwoman Suzie Price has communicated her support for AB 339 to a state Senate Committee in advance of its scheduled July 1 hearing on the bill (now listed among state Senate committee registered supporters below.) On June 2, Long Beach area Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell voted "no" on AB 339 which cleared the Assembly June 2 on a 54-9-16 vote. Nothing requires the City to continue the telephonic procedure, but nothing forbids the City from ending it either. Thus far most Long Beach Councilmembers have avoided mentioning eliminating public telephonic testimony when discussing "reopening City Hall." Councilwoman Price is the only Councilmember to date who has publicly supported AB 339 to continue the public's telephonic testimony procedure. ) Thus far, no Councilmember(s) have agendized the issue to provide direction to the City Clerk (who answers to the Council.) As a result, starting with the July 6 Council meeting, members of the public will (as in pre-pandemic days) have to travel downtown, sit in the Council Chamber (after pre-registering to speak on a Council item) with scheduling uncertain (as the Council routinely lets the Mayor shift agenda items out of order) and receive either three minutes speaking time from the podium (with fewer the ten pre-registered speakers) or ninety seconds (with ten or more pre-registered speakers). (The City also applied the same time limits to telephonic testimony.) As no LB Councilmember(s) have publicly agendized the issue, the added costs of having LB City Clerk staff handle both in person testimony and telephonic testimony haven't been publicly quantified and discussed. At the same time, a game-changing Sacramento bill, AB 339 would require cities with 250,000 residents or more to continue to allow telephonic public testimony. It would amend the Brown (open meetings) Act to state that all open and public meetings must include an opportunity for the public to attend via a two-way telephonic or two-way internet based service option. If it elects to provide a two-way internet-based service option, it must post and provide a call-in option, and activate automatic captioning if applicable; If as of June 15, 2021, it has provided video streaming of all open and public meetings, it must continue to provide that video streaming; Unless there are laws prohibiting in-person meetings in a declared state of emergency, meetings must include an in-person public comment opportunity which allows the public to report to a designated site and provide in-person comments. The location of the site and any relevant instructions must be included with the agenda; The local agency must ensure that the public participating via a two-way telephonic or internet-based option has the opportunity to comment on agenda items with the same time allotment as a person attending in-person. [Scroll down for further.] |
     |
