The County of San Luis Obispo does not know how to regulate public comment at meetings.
Section 54954.3 of the California Brown Act allows the public to speak on items on the agenda and items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, but it’s up to chairman or board president to determine how public comment is managed. However, the Brown Act doesn’t address the application of public comment. Instead, that act simply sets forth a mandate of implementation.
For the past year, I spoke to members of the Board of Supervisors and the LOCSD regarding their management of public comment. The head of each of those legislative bodies talked about how they have their own style and approach, but most importantly, they prioritized public policy over public consideration. In other words, they feel that public comment and one’s public testimony rights impede board business to a point that brings exasperation and distraction to members of the board.
Wait a second.
The people elect the power, but the power dismisses the people. We vote for representation so they can set forth public policies that are suppose to benefit us, but these representatives don’t want the public to respond or address their actions? What happened to democracy?
Public comment, which gives private citizens the ability to speak publicly to their representatives, has diminished in value.
Many people I’ve spoken to felt that public comment gives people the opportunity to express hatred and craziness in the midst of a politically hostile climate. To many board members in the County of San Luis Obispo, public comment is often intolerable. Given that the local legislative bodies have given people the opportunity to express their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, it doesn’t seem to be constitutionally sound when that speech is completely disregarded. The level of tolerance for accepting opinion and dissent is dangerously low.
Ironically, many of these board members ran their campaigns knowing — and have actively participated in as private citizens prior to running — that public comment (as extraneous and elongated as it may be sometimes) is part of the process. Not only is it part of the process, it’s part of policy.
Some board chairs believe that placing public comment at the end of the board agenda or adopting restrictions on public testimony time reflects positively on the legislative body for discussing board business and policy first. In actuality, it reflects positively when board business is addressed under any configuration. Setting public comment aside to the end of the meeting or placing restrictions on it sends a strong message to the community that neither the opinion or the person delivering their opinion matter.
Political opportunists and vocal community members take the opportunity to discriminate and — by other means — antagonize members of the public who speak during public comment. In Los Osos, some members of the community refer to known public comment speakers as “obstructionists” for using public comment to delay board business and deliberations regarding the Los Osos wastewater project, a controversial subject that has divided the town of 15,000 people. Those who have been called “obstructionists” have been threatened, slandered and physically harassed regularly. The word “obstructionist” has earned the tone of a racial epithet since the word has often invoked strong feelings and actions from those who have liberally used that label.
At the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Bruce Gibson restricted public comment regarding the Los Osos wastewater project to 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the afternoon, wholly contradicting the general rule set in the agenda that each public comment can have a maximum of three minutes per individual. County Counsel Warren Jensen explained the legality behind Gibson’s decision and the move to restrict the time was legal, but by reducing public comment for a specific item, that effectively diminishes the opinion of those who speak about it. Discrimination and intolerance become a byproduct of that restriction of time.
Unfiltered public comment should be at the beginning of every board meeting as a means of having a conversation with the community. By establishing that precedent, people will feel compelled to participate and become part of the process. If people realize that their opinion is understood and appreciated, board meetings will be efficient and progressive in setting forth new ideas. Those ideas, in return, would be inspired by public participation. More public support behind these ideas would reduce concerns regarding public acceptance of resolutions. The standard of critique would be raised to a higher level so that constructive feedback would be predominant. Any political smearing or ambiguously negative comment would sink to the bottom of the priorities for consideration.
If the government takes the initiative to listen to the people, the people will be receptive to that initiative and it will create the change that is necessary for being efficient. Avoiding, mocking or tampering with public comment only makes the problem worse.
Public Comment: A Good Investment for Public Policy
The County of San Luis Obispo does not know how to regulate public comment at meetings.
Section 54954.3 of the California Brown Act allows the public to speak on items on the agenda and items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, but it’s up to chairman or board president to determine how public comment is managed. However, the Brown Act doesn’t address the application of public comment. Instead, that act simply sets forth a mandate of implementation.
For the past year, I spoke to members of the Board of Supervisors and the LOCSD regarding their management of public comment. The head of each of those legislative bodies talked about how they have their own style and approach, but most importantly, they prioritized public policy over public consideration. In other words, they feel that public comment and one’s public testimony rights impede board business to a point that brings exasperation and distraction to members of the board.
Wait a second.
The people elect the power, but the power dismisses the people. We vote for representation so they can set forth public policies that are suppose to benefit us, but these representatives don’t want the public to respond or address their actions? What happened to democracy?
Public comment, which gives private citizens the ability to speak publicly to their representatives, has diminished in value.
Many people I’ve spoken to felt that public comment gives people the opportunity to express hatred and craziness in the midst of a politically hostile climate. To many board members in the County of San Luis Obispo, public comment is often intolerable. Given that the local legislative bodies have given people the opportunity to express their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, it doesn’t seem to be constitutionally sound when that speech is completely disregarded. The level of tolerance for accepting opinion and dissent is dangerously low.
Ironically, many of these board members ran their campaigns knowing — and have actively participated in as private citizens prior to running — that public comment (as extraneous and elongated as it may be sometimes) is part of the process. Not only is it part of the process, it’s part of policy.
Some board chairs believe that placing public comment at the end of the board agenda or adopting restrictions on public testimony time reflects positively on the legislative body for discussing board business and policy first. In actuality, it reflects positively when board business is addressed under any configuration. Setting public comment aside to the end of the meeting or placing restrictions on it sends a strong message to the community that neither the opinion or the person delivering their opinion matter.
Political opportunists and vocal community members take the opportunity to discriminate and — by other means — antagonize members of the public who speak during public comment. In Los Osos, some members of the community refer to known public comment speakers as “obstructionists” for using public comment to delay board business and deliberations regarding the Los Osos wastewater project, a controversial subject that has divided the town of 15,000 people. Those who have been called “obstructionists” have been threatened, slandered and physically harassed regularly. The word “obstructionist” has earned the tone of a racial epithet since the word has often invoked strong feelings and actions from those who have liberally used that label.
At the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Bruce Gibson restricted public comment regarding the Los Osos wastewater project to 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the afternoon, wholly contradicting the general rule set in the agenda that each public comment can have a maximum of three minutes per individual. County Counsel Warren Jensen explained the legality behind Gibson’s decision and the move to restrict the time was legal, but by reducing public comment for a specific item, that effectively diminishes the opinion of those who speak about it. Discrimination and intolerance become a byproduct of that restriction of time.
Unfiltered public comment should be at the beginning of every board meeting as a means of having a conversation with the community. By establishing that precedent, people will feel compelled to participate and become part of the process. If people realize that their opinion is understood and appreciated, board meetings will be efficient and progressive in setting forth new ideas. Those ideas, in return, would be inspired by public participation. More public support behind these ideas would reduce concerns regarding public acceptance of resolutions. The standard of critique would be raised to a higher level so that constructive feedback would be predominant. Any political smearing or ambiguously negative comment would sink to the bottom of the priorities for consideration.
If the government takes the initiative to listen to the people, the people will be receptive to that initiative and it will create the change that is necessary for being efficient. Avoiding, mocking or tampering with public comment only makes the problem worse.