Dear Mr. Weber,
The Attorney General Opinion you quote from which was published in 1992
actually led to the amendment of the law which is now the statutory language by
which public comment is regulated.
Even under the current statutes, public comments are still permitted BEFORE OR
DURING the consideration of the item. Some agencies will have the presentation
of an agenda item and then hold public comment on the item. Others take public
comment before the members discuss their relative positions. Both approaches
are permissible. The law requires public comment before or during consideration
of an item. Your complaint focuses upon the use of speaker cards and the
requirement that they be turned in BEFORE the item is called. This permits an
agency to determine how many people want to speak on an item. If, for instance,
there were dozens of speaker cards on a single item, it might mean that the
agency would have to either allocate additional time and
move the order of items around to accomodate the speakers, or otherwise make
accomodation so that the agency could accomplish its business. It is up to the
legislative body to create reasonable regulations regarding the time, place and
manner of public comment that are content neutral. Requiring speaker cards to
be turned in prior to commencement of consideration of an agenda item is a
reasonable way to regulate the amount of time on any given item.
I understand your concern and consternation. However, we are obligated to
review facts based upon the law as it exists. In this case, the requirement
that speaker cards are turned in before an item is called is rationally related
to the orderly conduct of a meeting, and it is not based upon content (that is,
the speaker's point of view). An agency can provide additional or broader
opportunities for public input, the but rules as they
exist currently permit the agency to use speaker cards that are turned in
before the agenda item is called.
From our analysis of the facts and the law, the speaker card requirement in
place in
JENNIFER LE
Assistant Head Deputy
Public Integrity Division
(213) 974-6513
Note:
Below is the Attorney General Opinion that Mr. Weber quoted from:
Reference: California Attorney General
Opinion No. 92-212, May 7, 1992
From the above reference:
“(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,
in the case of a meeting of a city council in a city or a board of supervisors
in a city and county, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of
the public to address the council or board on any item that has already been
considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the council or
board, 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
council or board.”
Rich:
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone,
other than an attorney or a politician, could believe that the intent
of the Brown Act is to allow a moderator (in this case Mayor Quintero) of a
legislative body (in this case the Glendale California City Council) to refuse
to allow a member of the public to address said legislative body because he or
she indicated the desire to do so DURING the
legislative body's consideration of the item. That, however,
is exactly what Glendale Mayor Frank Quintero declared to be his policy, as you
can see and hear for yourself by clicking on VIDEO.
The fact that the Glendale City Council uses
Speaker Cards as their method of allowing members of the public to
indicate their request to address the council has NOTHING to do with my request
for CalAware to look into this Brown Act violation.
Respectfully,
Hal