An item changing how often residents can speak at Long Beach city council meetings, first heavily opposed in June, made its way back to council Tuesday night.
This is what residents had to say:
“Why, of all of the things the council has proposed as an actual concrete idea that would actually amend the civil code [and have] structural changes of saving in this budget crisis, the one that you came forward with was condensing public comment?” said resident Sage D.
“The money you’re saying you’re saving, that’s just an excuse. You don’t want to hear residents complain. You don’t want to let us air our grievances,” said resident Cindy Milrad.
“We are a city of half a million people. Allowing us to speak for 60 seconds is laughable,” resident Fi said. “This council has made an abundance of poor choices, yet the first on the chopping block is our right to speak on agenda items. … you are failing our citizens and the lack of decency to hear our voices — you will not silence us.”
“It’s not often that a proposal meets with universal opposition, unanimous opposition and then comes back for a second time,” said Ian Patton with the Long Beach Reform Coalition.
“For you to use our ability to speak as a way to hold funds from the library, basically pitting the public against the library, is ridiculous,” said resident Lideth Schuester.
“Balancing a budget on the backs of public participation is a new low and it insinuates that your constituents aren’t worthy of real time and engagement,” said resident Ray Gabalich.
“How do you run for office, justify your positions, look yourself in the mirror if you vote to not hear your constituents, the very people you’re elected to represent?” asked resident Jim Hanigan.
“You have to want to do this thing. You have to want to hear from people. That’s the DNA of this job, the DNA of why you entered service to do things for the public,” resident Brian Cochrane said. “If you don’t want to hear from us, you’re reducing it to an echo chamber where your only voices are staff members with giant PowerPoints and presentations and your own voices.”
“It is indeed a cheap shot to use our public libraries as a bargaining chip. The idea that if we cut our public commenting short, maybe you’ll keep our local branch open an extra day of the week, that’s low,” said resident Meg Crabtree.
“You and the City departments make long, self-congratulatory presentations that we all sit through patiently and now you want to deny our right to question those presentations when they are made,” said resident Stewart Callaway. “This is a sneaky, underhanded attempt to stifle and limit discussion.”
The Long Beach City Council approved an item Tuesday evening that will change how residents participate in city council meetings: during one portion at the start of the evening.
Currently, residents get multiple chances to speak throughout city council meetings: one general public comment section where they can discuss anything they want, one opportunity per item discussed and one last general public section at the end of meetings.
The changes approved by council will combine all three into a single portion at the beginning of meetings, saving roughly $150,000. In a City staff report, officials argue these savings “will allow the City to restore vital community priorities, such as Quality of Life officers and expanded library services.”
This item was previously considered by the city council in June, which was met with heavy opposition from over a dozen residents. Residents showed up en masse at Tuesday night’s meeting to speak against the item, with over 20 attending in-person and over Zoom, with an additional 20 emails written to the council opposing the changes.
The public will get the chance to speak at meetings according to the following guidelines:
- Total public comment time will be capped at 90 minutes (the council can decide to extend that time)
- If 10 or fewer people sign up to speak, each person gets three minutes
- If 11-20 people give comments, each resident gets 90 seconds
- If more than 21 people sign up to speak, each resident gets 30 seconds to talk
Residents will still be able to speak at hearings, which include items like zoning changes, alcohol licenses, Environmental Impact Reports and more.
In June, the council presented the public comment changes as a way to meet the requirements of Senate Bill 707, which updates the Ralph M. Brown Act to require California local governments to provide full remote access and participation to their city council meetings. Residents argued that the changes to public comment were not necessary to meet SB 707 requirements, and the motion failed 5-3.
The City’s Reasoning for the Changes
The argument for bringing the item up again was for cost-saving measures, as the City prepares to adopt its 2027 fiscal year budget and grapples with a $58.2 million deficit.
The City projects it can save $150,632 in overtime hours for the City Clerk’s office by moving public comment to one portion at the start of the meeting. City Clerk Monique De La Garza said a team of three to four people is in the call center during meetings to handle Zoom calls, all of whom are working until the meeting is over.
By moving public comment to the beginning and capping it at 90 minutes, she said that staff overtime hours can be cut.
“So it’s not that this is a reduction, it’s a savings strategy,” said Mayor Rex Richardson. “This is an additional cost that in a reduction scenario, or a reduction year, it’s difficult to add more resources above and beyond holding the line in this scenario, particularly when services are being cut.”
Want more local news?
Sign up for the Signal Tribune’s newsletters
Councilmember Opposition
Second District Councilmember Cindy Allen said she couldn’t accept the item on the floor, and felt it was still very similar to the item the council previously rejected.
“I just oppose this, I think it’s the wrong thing to do,” she said.
Allen pointed out that the City’s presentation materials, which are part of what they present at council during items, are not always made available to the public in a timely manner.
City Manager Modica called these last-minute additions “very rare.”
For the Sept. 2 meeting, presentation items for the budget hearing were not published publicly until Tuesday afternoon, just hours before the meeting.
Allen also added that she didn’t like how the public comment changes were “tied to libraries” in the staff report.
Mayor Rex Richardson told Allen to sign back up to finish her comments since she had reached her five-minute time limit, which she took issue with later in the meeting.
“I had two sentences left and you just cut me off,” she said. “That’s so disrespectful, but you chair the meeting and you pick and choose who you want to hear from so I get it.”
She then finished her comments on the item, saying she can’t imagine a council meeting where 10 or fewer people show up, so those people will presumably only have 60-90 seconds to speak.
Fifth District Councilmember Megan Kerr, who voted no on the item in June, voted yes on Tuesday with requested tweaks.
Kerr requested the following changes to the motion:
- That the City Clerk report at every meeting how many people are signed up to comment and their method of public comment
- Having a cut-off date for City staff to add presentation materials and reports by the Friday before City Council meetings
- Closing public comment when the last person is speaking, rather than at the start of an item
Richardson chimed in that he would support these changes, although the mayor doesn’t get a vote on items.
Sixth District Councilmember Suely Saro said she was making her decision based on young people, immigrants and people who may be coming to meetings as part of an organization or labor union.
“I don’t ever see my residents staying here later at night in order to make sure their comments are made, because they want to make it in the beginning and they want to be heard and then they leave. And I want to make sure I respect their time, they know their time is certain when they speak,” Saro said.
Allen and Third District Councilmember Kristina Duggan were the two dissenting votes on the item, with the rest of the council approving it 7-2.
The city council still has to vote on a final approval of this item at a future meeting.
