Features

Faced with threats of a lawsuit, the City Council has begun to explore ways to increase both the number of people allowed to speak directly to the council at its meetings and the variety of topics the public can address.  

“I want it discussed at a time when the public is present,” said Gene Bernardi of SuperBOLD (Berkeleyans Organizing for Library Defense), referring to the fact that discussions about the matter are now taking place at the Agenda Committee, which meets at 2:30 p.m., when most working people find it difficult to attend. 

Until recently, the council limited to 10 the number of speakers—chosen by lottery—at the public comment session; each was permitted to speak for up to three minutes on whatever topic the person wished. 

The problem, SuperBOLD said, was that when more than 10 people want to address the council, some are not heard. Moreover, some council issues the public might want to address are not heard at all. 

“The public comment lottery system improperly denies willing speakers the right to address the council and [library] board at public meetings, and it improperly prevents certain agenda items from receiving public comment,” wrote Sophia Cope, attorney with the Oakland-based First Amendment Project, in a letter to the city attorney. 

If adequate public comment is not provided, the First Amendment Project plans “possible litigation” on behalf of SuperBOLD, Cope wrote in April. 

Over the last month or so, Mayor Tom Bates has been experimenting with public comment procedures. Fifteen people have been chosen to speak for two minutes each. At the close of the 30-minute public comment period, he has then called upon those whose issue—or whose side of the issue—has not been addressed. 

“We’re trying out different ideas,” Bates said in a phone interview Monday. “We’re experimenting with it.” 

Bates defended the decision to discuss public comment at the daytime Agenda Committee meetings, noting the public can give input in writing and that most of the council chooses to attend the meetings, even though only four are members. 

In a phone interview Friday, Councilmember Kriss Worthington applauded the changes, but called for more. 

“In the past months, more members of the public have been allowed to comment. That is a step forward,” he said, noting, however, the rules changes have been confusing. “Rules one week are different from the next. We need a system where we know what the rules are.” 

Worthington is working on a sunshine ordinance, which he says will address public comment rules as well as other open meeting procedures. 

Addressing the changes he would like to see, Worthington said he wants to continue to hear the random 15 speakers at the beginning of the meeting. But he would like to add an opportunity for others to speak just before their items of interest are heard. Many cities, including Oakland, Millbrae, Sunnyvale, Walnut Creek and Richmond, allow comment just before an item on the agenda.  

But Bates said he thinks that would not work in Berkeley. “Some people would speak on 20 items,” he said. 

Scheduling public comment is a “real balancing act,” said Councilmember Linda Maio, noting that she’s gotten valuable information from public comment. Maio suggested that large groups that come to address the council could be given 10 minutes to speak. 

Public comment cannot be “open-ended,” she said. 

If everyone were allowed to speak, council meetings could go “too late to get business done,” Maio said. 

The remedy for late-night council meetings is not to limit speakers, but to adjust meetings so that special meetings are held for public hearings, which tend to be long and well attended, Worthington said. 

Bates said he’s not opposed to additional meetings. 

He pointed out that on July 25, the public comment period extended to more than hour, causing the meeting to end after midnight. 

“The later the council meets, the more irrational the discussion gets,” Bates said. 

Not everyone thinks drastic change is necessary. Sherry Smith, past president of the League of Women Voters, argued that “very few people have been excluded from speaking.” 

Still, Smith congratulated Bates on trying to make sure that “no one point of view has been excluded” by calling on people to share opposing views. 

But Bernardi pointed out that calling on people from the “other” side of an issue is not always valid.  

“Some people say that they were not pro or con [on an issue], but they have something to say about it,” she said. 

Contending that the council is “dragging its feet” in making change, Bernardi said new rules should already have been written. “They knew [summer] recess was coming up. Tom Bates wants to look like he’s doing something.” 

But Bates said the agenda committee will finalize its proposals in September, then send them to the full council. “It’s not like it’s going to be chiseled in stone,” Bates said, explaining there will be room to fine-tune new rules.