A highly contentious Long Beach City Council meeting, which included chants for councilmembers to resign, threats of having residents removed from the chambers and promises of future litigation resulted in a 6-3 approval of a controversial item.
The resulting vote is set to fundamentally change how residents are able to speak at city council meetings and was approved for a first reading Tuesday night. Rather than the chance to speak once per item throughout the meeting, residents will have a single chance at the start of meetings to address specific items or speak on general issues.
Advocates for the item argue that it will make meetings more accessible, since residents often have to wait hours before the city council gets to the item they want to speak about. Those critical of the item say it will be more difficult to speak about issues before receiving a staff presentation about it, and feel their comments will be out of context once the council does get to their item.
Critics also pointed out that the council currently has the power to move up an item if it has significant interest or certain groups want to speak, which they have done many times in the past. Mayor Rex Richardson responded to this criticism by saying that this removes the process of “playing favorites” with the order of items and “democratizes” the agenda.
The item originated in the City’s Government Operations and Efficiency committee, though committee chair and Third District Councilmember Kristina Duggan voted against the item. Fifth District Councilmember Mega Kerr, who also voted no, said that the original intent of this item was to explore changes to make council meetings more “welcoming,” but by the time the item came to council, Kerr said, it seemed more focused on “efficiency.”
“When the public comment is disconnected from the item being presented and deliberated, it sends a very troubling message that our comments are something to get through rather than information that should inform your decisions,” said second district resident Alyssa Gutierrez.
These changes were narrowly voted down by the council in June, then approved in September. Tuesday’s meeting saw a 6-3 vote to approve the first reading of the item. A second reading is still required before the change becomes part of the City’s municipal code.
Multiple councilmembers’ speeches were met with shouts and interruptions from the crowd of residents. Vice Mayor Roberto Uranga told residents to not interrupt him as he spoke in support of the changes.
“I’ve been consistently voting for this because I have been listening to my residents,” Councilmember Suely Saro said. “I’ve had diverse community residents call in because they have various circumstances and not only in why they couldn’t attend the meeting but why they also have challenges calling in.”
About a dozen residents stood up and faced the wall with their backs to councilmembers as they spoke. Multiple chants of “vote them out” and “shame on you” proceeded throughout the night, followed by cheers from the crowd. Multiple residents told councilmembers that if they don’t want to stay late into the night for meetings, they should resign. A handful of residents directly cussed out councilmembers, some by name and some as an entire governing body, which a few councilmembers addressed later in the meeting.
“I have constituents who’ve made clear that they are not comfortable and are afraid to be in the chambers because of the way people are expressing themselves here,” Thrash-Ntuk said. Her speech, along with others who were in support of the changes, were disrupted with boos and shouts from the crowd.
At the request of Mayor Richardson, warnings to not disrupt the meeting were given to residents in attendance, and two men left after being issued a third and final warning. After the third warning, residents were told they would be asked to leave.
“A few months ago I watched the mayor say that our democracy is under attack, but let me tell you something. Democracy is not only threatened by what happens in Washington. Democracy is threatened right here when the people are being told to speak before we have even heard the agenda item we’re being asked to speak on,” Long Beach resident and City employee Anthony Holmes said. “Democracy is threatened when public comment is limited so much that the public is barely being heard. You cannot call it public participation if you control how and how much the public is allowed to participate.”
The three councilmembers who voted against the item: Cindy Allen, Duggan and Kerr, suggested other changes the council could make to make meetings more accessible and shorter.
Duggan suggested a substitute item to keep public comment running as is.
“I don’t think asking someone to make one comment at the beginning of the meeting hours before we discuss the issue they came here for is the same level of public participation,” Duggan said. “I understand our meetings run long, part of our meetings is deliberation and discussion. Sitting here listening to the public is one of the most basic responsibilities we have as councilmembers.”
She said the council could reexamine the rules they already have in place but are not following, such as the five-minute limit on ceremonies and presentations at the beginning of meetings.
“Over the nearly four years I’ve been on council, I don’t know if we’ve ever had a ceremony less than five minutes,” Duggan added.
As part of her substitute item, she suggested the council designate items that impact youth be automatically moved up so that students don’t have to stay late. Allen also suggested that if someone discloses that they have a disability, that person’s public comment time can be moved up as well.
Duggan’s substitute item failed on the floor, only backed by Allen and Kerr.
Second District Councilmember Allen, who spoke strongly against the item in September and even got into a back-and-forth with the mayor over it, said the changes are “not democratic.” She pointed out how the reasons for the consolidated public time period have changed multiple times, from SB707 requirements to budget constraints and now accessibility.
“I’ve been on council for six years, and this is by far the most convoluted, undemocratic, ambiguous, backroom policy decision making that I have ever seen,” Allen said. She added that she remained concerned about the “ambiguous” language around speaking time: whether or not speaking time will be automatically reduced based on how many people signed up to speak or if it will be at the mayor’s discretion.
