Rights of Public Comment
Q: The City is holding public meetings using public facilities and staff to show plans of a developer of a former navy base. The only public participation allowed is in two methods. One is the small group’s method, the opinions of the members of the public in these groups, may or may not be presented after the small groups have met. The other is comment cards which are known only to the developer and staff. The ability of the public to present their opinions at a microphone is not allowed.
There is no way the City Council will ever know what the public has said. The right of the public to petition their government is being suppressed. Only pro-developer, high density hype is allowed past the censorship.
A: The first question is probably whether the meetings to which you refer are “meetings” within the meaning of the Brown Act. A meeting under the Brown Act is “any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.” Govt. Code § 54952.2. It is not clear from your description below whether the meetings at issue are “meetings” subject to the requirements of the Brown Act.
If the meeting standard is satisfied, then the second question is what kind of public comment is required by the Brown Act. The Brown Act provides that:
(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2. However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee’s consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body. Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.
(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.
Cal Gov Code § 54954.3 (emphasis added).
In other words, at every regular meeting, the body must allow an opportunity for the public to speak, but it may adopt “reasonable” rules to limit the time in which a member of the public may speak of the amount of time allowed to address particular issues. It is not clear that allowing members of the public to speak in “small groups” meets the requirement of allowing the public to “directly address the legislative body.” Although I am not aware of any authority as to whether allowing the public to submit comment cards satisfies the direct address requirement, there would seem to be good arguments that it does not, particularly if, as you suggest, the members of the legislative body do not read the comments. Finally, allowing only public comment that supports a particular position might run afoul of subdivision (c) of 54954.3 — that the body may not prohibit public criticism of the agency’s policies, procedures, programs, or services.
A&A: Rights of Public Comment
Rights of Public Comment
Q: The City is holding public meetings using public facilities and staff to show plans of a developer of a former navy base. The only public participation allowed is in two methods. One is the small group’s method, the opinions of the members of the public in these groups, may or may not be presented after the small groups have met. The other is comment cards which are known only to the developer and staff. The ability of the public to present their opinions at a microphone is not allowed.
There is no way the City Council will ever know what the public has said. The right of the public to petition their government is being suppressed. Only pro-developer, high density hype is allowed past the censorship.
A: The first question is probably whether the meetings to which you refer are “meetings” within the meaning of the Brown Act. A meeting under the Brown Act is “any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.” Govt. Code § 54952.2. It is not clear from your description below whether the meetings at issue are “meetings” subject to the requirements of the Brown Act.
If the meeting standard is satisfied, then the second question is what kind of public comment is required by the Brown Act. The Brown Act provides that:
(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2. However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee’s consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the legislative body. Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.
(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.
Cal Gov Code § 54954.3 (emphasis added).
In other words, at every regular meeting, the body must allow an opportunity for the public to speak, but it may adopt “reasonable” rules to limit the time in which a member of the public may speak of the amount of time allowed to address particular issues. It is not clear that allowing members of the public to speak in “small groups” meets the requirement of allowing the public to “directly address the legislative body.” Although I am not aware of any authority as to whether allowing the public to submit comment cards satisfies the direct address requirement, there would seem to be good arguments that it does not, particularly if, as you suggest, the members of the legislative body do not read the comments. Finally, allowing only public comment that supports a particular position might run afoul of subdivision (c) of 54954.3 — that the body may not prohibit public criticism of the agency’s policies, procedures, programs, or services.