Outlook
City councils proposal to change public comment policy
From Beverly Leifer <[email protected]>
Date Thu 9/24/2026 1:36 PM
To Council District 2 <[email protected]>; Mayor <[email protected]>; CityClerk < [email protected]>; [email protected] < distrit1 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 3 < district3 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 4 < [email protected]>; Council District 5 < district5 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 6 < [email protected]>; Council District 7 < [email protected]>; Council District 8 < [email protected]>; Council District 9 <[email protected]>
-EXTERNAL-
Dear Mayor and council members,
Ifind this ordinance to be the most egregious act suggested by any city council.
The idea of further removing the public from giving testimony on issues that will come before them, before staff reports, or in discussions that happen hours later is a slap in the face to everyone trying to make a difference in their communities. How is this he public supposed to comment on reports before hearing them?
It's an insult and a threat to democracy as we have known it.
Democracy is a system of government where power belongs to the people, who exercise it directly or with our elected representatives.
You signed up for this job!
You were elected to listen, hear, and respond to the will of the people in a timely manner. You cannot possibly remember the arguments for or against an issue, or the public's new ideas/suggestions/impacts, hours after they have given their public opinions.
Your job is not to simply make your like-minded" decisions for us, the people you were elected to represent. It's about hearing what ALL who want to speak have to say.
That is part of the job you wanted to be elected to do. After some research, it appears that anyone can use whatever language they want with little recourse. The vulgarity is part of their 1st Amendment rights. What you can use is the "disruptive" circumstances they are creating for you and your audiences. You're being cowards not wanting to hear from he public because you don't like what you hear.
According to our city attorney's office, you can be more forceful than you currently are.
And your focus on families with children who want to attend, so therefore testimony should come earlier to convenience them, is also a lame excuse. Most, if not all, of those families are working, having their family dinners, and doing their daily nighttime routine with their children. Not taking the children to a city council meeting! This excuse is hypocritical of you all, after allowing people disparage an elderly holocaust survivor and other Jews in the past. You lost complete control over the public comment period back then.
SB707 can actually provide for those in that situation, or those who do not drive, or are not able- bodied, or simply don't want to sit in your chambers until their issue is heard, by fully funding the city clerk's office so that this state-mandated service is available. I am handicapped and no longer drive and use a walker; but that doesn't mean I can't sit through council meetings. The $150K savings you identified equals roughly $4K each week for approximately 34 weeks of meetings a year. Seems a bit steep for overtime of maybe 5-6 hours per meeting. You could pay 10 people 60.00 per hour for 6.6 hours to reach that $4K each week. To save money, why not adjust the staffs day/hours on meeting days. Also eliminate unnecessary positions like vice mayor? What this truly seems to be about is finding ways to make your city council meetings shorter, not longer.
Doing a less-than-adequate job is again not why you were elected to serve our city.
You want respect, and so do your constituents.
Respectfully,
Beverly Leifer
2nd District
Outlook
Item 29 Public Comment Period
From Karen Reside < [email protected]>
Date Wed 9/30/20269:48 AM
To CityClerk < [email protected]>
-EXTERNAL-
The Long Beach Gray Panthers are in opposition to this change in the Public Comment Period. People and Organizations need to be able to speak on individual items on the agenda.
Karen Reside
Long Beach Gray Panthers
Outlook
Do Not Further Limit Public Comment at Long Beach City Council Meetings!!! (Oct. 6th Agenda, Item #29)
From Melinda Cotton <[email protected] >
Date Wed 9/30/2026 11:19 AM
To Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; Council District 1 <district1 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 2 < [email protected]>; Council District 3 < [email protected]>; Council District 4 < [email protected]>; Council District 5 < [email protected]>; Council District 6 < [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Council District 8 < [email protected]>; Council District 9 < [email protected]>; Dawn McIntosh <[email protected]>; Tom Modica <[email protected]>; Senator Lena Gonzalez <[email protected]>; Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal <[email protected]>; CityClerk<[email protected]> -EXTERNAL-
Dear Mayor Richardson and Councilmembers,
I join the multitude of Long Beach residents and business owners in strongly opposing the extreme limitations on Public Comment at Long Beach Council meetings contained in Item #29 on the October 6th Agenda. This Ordinance would do the exact opposite of what California Senate Bill 707 sought to obtain: More Public Comment at Council meetings and MORE opportunity for the public to be heard on important issues facing our cities!! I join Former Grunion Gazette Executive Editor Harry Saltzgaver, Signal Tribune Managing Editor Samantha Diaz and many hundreds of your constituents who are petitioning and writing to you and seeking a "No Vote". Former longtime Councilmember Rae Gabelich, in her letter below, clearly explained the important duty of the Mayor, Councilmembers and City Staff to listen to your constituents. Please read her letter carefully.
Respectfully,
Melinda Cotton
43-year Long Beach resident
RAE GABELICH
To: [email protected], Councilmember Mary Zendejas, Councilwoman Cindy Allen, Councilmember Kristina Duggan, Council District 4, district5 @longbeach.gov, [email protected], Council District 7, [email protected], [email protected], Dawn Mcintosh, Tom Modica
Cc: Rae Gabelich
Sep 16, 2026, 4:16 PM
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On October 6, 2026, you will hear and vote on the first reading of your proposed ordinance. I find this ordinance to be the most egregious act suggested by any city council I have watched for over 40 years.
The idea of further removing the public from giving testimony on issues that will come before them, before staff reports, or in discussions that happen hours later is a slap in the face to everyone trying to make a difference in their communities. It's an insult and a threat to democracy as we have known it.
Democracy is a system of government where power belongs to the people, who exercise it directly or with our elected representatives.
You signed up for this job! You were elected to listen, hear, and respond to the will of the people in a timely manner. You cannot possibly remember the arguments for or against an issue, or the public's new ideas/suggestions/impacts, hours after they have given their public opinions.
Your job is not to simply make your "like-minded" decisions for us, the people you were elected to represent. It's about hearing what ALL who want to speak have to say.
I witnessed the challenges you face, apparently most weeks, but that is part of the job you wanted to be elected to do. After some research, it appears that anyone can use whatever language they want with little recourse. The vulgarity is part of their 1st Amendment rights.
What you can use is the "disruptive" circumstances they are creating for you and your audiences. According to our city attorney's office, you can be more forceful than you currently are.
And your focus on families with children who want to attend, so therefore testimony should come earlier to convenience them, is also a lame excuse. Most, if not all, of those families are working, having their family dinners, and doing their daily nighttime routine with their children.
Not taking the children to a city council meeting!
SB707 can actually provide for those in that situation, or those who do not drive, or are not able- bodied, or simply don't want to sit in your chambers until their issue is heard, by fully funding the city clerk's office so that this state-mandated service is available. The $150K savings you identified equals roughly $4K each week for approximately 34 weeks of meetings a year. Seems a bit steep for overtime of maybe 5-6 hours per meeting. You could pay 10 people 60.00 per hour for 6.6 hours to reach that $4K each week.
What this truly seems to be about is finding ways to make your city council meetings shorter, not longer.
Doing a less-than-adequate job is again not why you were elected to serve our city.
You want respect, and so do your constituents!
Respectfully,
Rae Gabelich
5th District
Outlook
City Council Public Comment - Agenda Item 29
From [email protected] < [email protected]> Date Thu 10/1/2026 3:43 PM
To CityClerk <[email protected]>
-EXTERNAL-
Dear City Clerk and Honorable Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Agenda Item 29 regarding changes to the city's public comment structure, as well as to lodge a formal complaint regarding the official public outreach surrounding this item.
First, the proposal to combine regular agenda and non-agenda topics into a single, shared turn inherently limits rather than expands public participation. Restricting residents' ability to speak separately on distinct city issues reduces municipal transparency and creates an artificial barrier to open civic engagement.
Second, I am deeply concerned by the promotional, biased nature of the official public information campaign distributed by the City Clerk's office on social media regarding this item.
Official city channels have published slides declaring that this proposal "removes barriers" and asserting what residents "shouldn't have to" do.
Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/Dd9zzRCkihC?img_index=1 It is entirely inappropriate for a city department to use public resources to campaign for or selectively highlight the perceived benefits of an unvoted agenda item before the City Council has held a public hearing or cast a vote. Public outreach from the Clerk's office must remain strictly neutral, informational, and objective.
I urge the City Council to vote NO on this proposal and to direct staff to maintain objective neutrality in all future public communications.
Sincerely,
Eldred
Outlook
Re Oppose item 29, the public commentary item, Oct 6.
From Linda Scholl <|schol|[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/1/2026 6:39 PM
To Council District 1 <district1 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 2 <[email protected]>; Council District 3 < [email protected]>; Council District 4 < [email protected]>; Council District 5 <district5 @longbeach.gov>; CityClerk<[email protected]>; Council District 7 < district7 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 8 <district8 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 9 < [email protected]>; Council District 6 <[email protected]> Cc Linda Scholl <[email protected]>
-EXTERNAL-
Dear Council Members,
Please vote NO on Item 29.
Public comment isn't a nuisance to be neatly bundled away—it's one of the clearest ways residents participate in their local government.
Item 29 would consolidate and isolate public comments, potentially making them less visible, less informative, and less meaningful. That may make the agenda look tidier, but democracy was never supposed to be about keeping things tidy.
Our community has ideas, concerns, questions, and yes, sometimes even opinions. That's called civic engagement—and it deserves to be heard.
At a time when meaningful public participation matters more than ever, please keep the public's voice where it belongs: front and center, not tucked away in Item 29.
Thank you for listening—and for keeping the door to public participation open.
Sincerely,
Linda Scholl
Long Beach resident
Outlook
Vote No on Item 29
From Jim Goodin <[email protected] >
Date Fri 10/2/2026 1:27 PM
To Council District 1 <district1 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 2 <[email protected]>; Council District 3 < district3 @longbeach.gov>; Council District 4 < [email protected]>; Council District 5 < [email protected]>; CityClerk < [email protected]>; Council District 7 < [email protected]>; Council District 8 < [email protected]>; Council District 9 < [email protected]»; Council District 6 < [email protected]> Cc James Goodin <[email protected]>
-EXTERNAL-
Vote No on Item 29. Council members were elected to represent the residents and businesses in the City. If you don't listen to your constituents you cannot represent them. It makes no sense to have citizens speak on an agenda item hours prior it is voted on. Citizen speaking needs context. Speaking needs to take place after the Clerk reads the item and prior to a council vote is taken. Only then it is meaningful.
Already transparency is diminishing. Just read this agenda item (29). It makes no sense; its purpose is completely obfuscated. The agenda needs to be understandable. Also, I can no longer watch council meetings on Spectrum channel 3, as I have been doing for 30 years--further reducing transparency.
Vote no on item 29,
Jim Goodin
P.O. Box 16192, Long Beach, CA 90806
[email protected]
WRIGLEY
ASSOCIATION
LONG BEACH, CA
October 2, 2026
To: Mayor Rex Richardson and Members of the Long Beach City Council Subject: Agenda Item No. 29 - Proposed Changes to Public Comment (File No. 26-56299) Dear Mayor Rex Richardson and Members of the City Council, On behalf of the Wrigley Association, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed changes to public comment procedures outlined in Agenda Item No. 29. We believe these changes could significantly limit the ability of Long Beach residents to meaningfully participate in City Council meetings and share their perspectives on matters that directly affect their neighborhoods and the broader community.
We understand the City's interest in making Council meetings more efficient and managing the time and resources required to conduct them. However, we are concerned that consolidating public comment into a single period at the beginning of meetings, along with reducing individual speaking time based on the number of speakers, places efficiency ahead of meaningful public participation.
Under the proposed rules, all general and agenda-item public comments would be consolidated into one period at the beginning of the meeting. Speaking time would be reduced according to the number of speakers: three minutes for 1-10 speakers, 90 seconds for 11-20 speakers, and 60 seconds when there are 21 or more speakers. While these changes may help manage meeting length, they could make it more difficult for residents to fully explain their concerns, particularly when addressing complex issues or multiple agenda items.
We are especially concerned that requiring residents to comment before Council has heard staff presentations or deliberated on an agenda item removes an important opportunity for the public to respond to information presented during the meeting. Residents may not have all the relevant information when they speak, and their comments may be less timely or useful by the time the Council considers and votes on the item. The current structure provides opportunities for residents Our Mission: The Wrigley Association is a 501 C4 non-profit organization, (CA State ID # 1673284) whose mission is to promote the common interest, instill pride, establish and encourage the highest standards in Wrigley. To foster an active understanding of citizenship and civic responsibility. To oppose and discourage discrimination and to create a sense of belonging. To promote higher business standards and encourage uniformity and cooperation among merchants, property owners and residents. To eliminate crime, promote community pride, and develop wholesome, enjoyable, cultural, social, and physical activities. to address specific agenda items and offer general comments, allowing for more focused and informed participation.
Reducing speaking time based on the number of people wishing to comment could disproportionately affect residents who need additional time to explain an issue, provide context, or share information on behalf of their neighborhood. A 60-second limit, in particular, may not be sufficient to communicate substantive concerns on complicated matters or when residents wish to address more than one issue.
While we recognize the City's stated goal of reducing costs, including projected savings in Clerk's Office overtime, we believe these savings should be weighed against the potential impact on public access and participation. Residents should not have to sacrifice meaningful opportunities to be heard in order to make meetings more manageable. We encourage the City to explore other ways to improve meeting efficiency that do not significantly reduce opportunities for public input.
We are also concerned that the proposed changes are being brought forward again following substantial public opposition to an earlier version of the proposal. The concerns raised by residents during the previous discussion deserve careful consideration, and we encourage the Council to continue engaging with the community before making a final decision.
Finally, we encourage the Council to consider the spirit of the Brown Act and the importance of maintaining accessible, meaningful opportunities for the public to participate in local government.
Even where procedures may meet applicable legal requirements, it is important that they also support the public's ability to provide timely and informed input.
The Wrigley Association respectfully asks the City Council to reconsider the proposed changes before taking final action. We support efforts to make Council meetings more efficient, but believe those efforts should preserve meaningful opportunities for residents to share their concerns, respond to information presented, and have their voices heard before decisions are made.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the Long Beach community.
Sincerely,
Wrigley Association
On behalf of the Board and members of the Wrigley Association Our Mission: The Wrigley Association is a 501 C4 non-profit organization, (CA State ID # 1673284) whose mission is to promote the common interest, instill pride, establish and encourage the highest standards in Wrigley. To foster an active understanding of citizenship and civic responsibility. To oppose and discourage discrimination and to create a sense of belonging. To promote higher business standards and encourage uniformity and cooperation among merchants, property owners and residents. To eliminate crime, promote community pride, and develop wholesome, enjoyable, cultural, social, and physical activities.