STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of February 13, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Remote Public Participation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction to staff regarding a remote participation option for members of the public at public meetings.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 9, 2024, City Council meeting, the Council approved a request from Council Member Bailey for staff to provide an update on the City’s current policy of temporary suspension of public comment via Zoom.
The Brown Act (CA Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.) requires that the City Council conduct business in open, public, and noticed meetings. Before Covid-19 Pandemic, all City Council meetings were held in person and there were no options for remote participation. During COVID-19, the City implemented technology upgrades to accommodate remote participation for members of the public. The City started using the Zoom platform as a format for the public to engage in public meetings remotely and safely. The City Council, Planning Commission, Finance Commission and the Community & Library Service Commission meetings were organized to provide the public with remote participation options.
In late 2023, cities in the surrounding area and throughout the State experienced remote participants who made racist, homophobic, and antisemitic comments via Zoom, known as “Zoom Bombing”. Out of an abundance of caution, staff recommended, and the City Council concurred, that remote participation be suspended temporarily. During the suspension of remote participation, the public has been able to listen and watch via Zoom, but unable to provide public comment remotely. Currently, if a member of the public would like to provide a public comment, they need to attend the meeting in-person or submit their public comment via email to the City Clerk.
ANALYSIS:
The City Clerk’s office surveyed surrounding agencies (Attachment 1). Out of twenty-four (24) cities, twelve (12) cities either no longer offer the option to attend City Council meetings remotely or have not returned to remote participation due to the “Zoom Bombing” that their city experienced. Six (6) cities offer a hybrid option with limitations, such as limiting general public comment to in person attendees. The remaining six (6) cities, either never suspended remote participation or started offering the option again after the first of the year. Below is a list of potential opportunities and obstacles in allowing remote participation via Zoom.
Opportunities:
Allows for an additional means for the public to communicate with their elected officials.
Provides greater accessibility to citizens who have mobility or childcare issues and are unable to attend a public meeting in person.
Having the ability to watch a meeting and comment remotely may increase public participation.
Obstacles:
The addition of remote public comments makes public entities vulnerable to nefarious groups outside the jurisdiction, possibly out of the State, that mount coordinated attacks to spread hate speech.
Hate groups actively seek out opportunities to use the broadcast of public meetings as a forum for spreading hate and dissention.
The use of Zoom for public comment creates challenges in controlling disruptive behavior during public meetings since participants on Zoom can be anonymous. Zoom participation can be from anywhere in the world.
The following are a list of hybrid options to consider moving forward:
Return to how the City previously accepted remote public comment before the suspension was implemented.
Accept remote public comment only on items on the agenda.
Accept public comment both in person and remotely but the time the public is allowed to speak would be reduced from the three (3) minutes that is currently in place.
Continue to provide a hybrid option to watch and listen to the meeting but public comment can only be received in person or via email.
Pursuant to California Government Code, the City is not obligated to provide remote participation options in meetings; most public agencies provide it as a courtesy. If the City Council directs staff to bring back the use of Zoom for remote public comments, applicable law would not allow the City to impose restrictions upon remote participants (such as residency restrictions).
During the remote participation suspension period, October 2023 to present, the City has not received complaints from the public regarding the modified participation policy.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
Remote Participation Survey of Local Agencies