Front Page  »  

Arroyo Grande’s outrageous limit on public comment, dangerous precedent

August 19, 2024

Julie Tacker

OPINION by JULIE TACKER

The Arroyo Grande City Council on Aug. 18 made an unprecedented move to limit public comment for items not on the agenda to just sixty seconds, even though the agenda did not include reducing public comment.

The city’s consent calendar, where routine business usually sails through without controversy, included an update to the city handbook. But, on this night, with few in attendance, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie pulled the update to the city handbook from the agenda to discuss further and suggested reducing the general public comment period to just one minute.

Each of the council members ultimately agreed, even Mayor Caren Ray Russom, who is running for reelection and historically champions herself as accessible and transparent.

The discussion included how many ways a citizen can reach the council including, email, website, tip line, phone call and appointment. It was inferred that getting one’s point across could be done in just one minute.

The California Government Code commencing with Section 54950, commonly referred to as the Ralph M. Brown Act, was established in the 1950s. While allowing public comment for three minutes is not a requirement, it is customary and appreciated. It’s just three minutes of one’s life; less time than it takes to microwave popcorn or watch a TikTok video.

Generally, when large crowds come to a public meeting, creative chairpersons will ask for speakers who are willing to come forward to give testimony for one-minute, those who can say what they want to say with that constraint, will. The chairperson will then ask if there are speakers who can say what they need to say in two minutes, those who can, will, and when the chairperson finally opens the comment period up to three-minute speakers, often times, much of the points of any one issue have been covered, which ultimately reduces the amount of speakers, in turn reducing public comment time altogether.

The Arroyo Grande City Council members receive a monthly stipend for their service. They meet twice a month and are paid $640 per month, with the mayor receiving $848 per month. Some of these “servants” receive fringe benefits, including medical and dental. It seems to me, for the $56,381.56 in total annual council compensation the citizens of Arroyo Grande pay these council members and mayor, they should be heard for a mere three minutes for an item not on the agenda.

As a 20-plus year advocate for the Brown Act, I have sent the city a demand to cure and correct their Brown Act violation. Specifically, for not agendizing the narrow subject of reducing public comment to one minute from the three minutes provided for in the City Handbook.

Had the city publicized the outrageous idea through their agenda materials, putting the community on notice, it is likely the chambers would have been packed. The mayor could have used the creative speaker format outlined above, and perhaps realized that every citizen has a voice and should be heard – for no less than three minutes.

Setting the dangerous precedent of one minute public comment for Arroyo Grande and other agencies, boarders on quashing our First Amendment Rights to free speech, untransparent and dangerous for democracy.

Julie Tacker has served as a countywide activist for more than 20 years.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Cal. Code Regs. Tit.5 section 20511 (b)(3). time for public comment limited to 3 minutes. Lower limit only if the presiding chair determines it is necessary for orderly conduct of business.


7

The Brown Act needs to be amended to legally guarantee at least 3 minutes of public comment.


11

The ridiculous 1 minute comment period restriction is for items NOT on the agenda.

What is the public comment length for items ON the agenda?


0

It’s no surprise that Guthrie pulled this crap.

Shame on the others for going along with him.


19

Hmmm, the SLO County BOS has now forbidden the citizens from using the various media in the supervisor’s chambers, limiting the ability of citizens to present their arguments. AG now limits comments to 1 minute. I guess our elected officials feel they don’t need our input, just our votes.


20

Thank you Julie! We appreciate your knowledge and willingness to bring issues forward to the public. Where we would otherwise be Clueless!! You are Awesome!! Seems to be the way of Government recently, taking away our rights to express ourselves. Thinking they know best, making efforts to squelch our 1st Amendment rights! IT is Dangerous! They forget for whom they serve!


19

This attack on our first amendment freedoms comes courtesy of AG Mayor Caren Ray Rossum and the SLO County Progressives. Remember, they are the hypocrites who attack others who they believe threaten democracy.


Caren Ray Rossum is deserving of our contempt, and I agree with Ironhub that it is now time for civil disobedience against those political bureaucrats who would thumb their noses at the taxpaying public who pay their fat salaries.


Politicians who act was though we work for them, rather than the other way around, should be recalled from office and replaced by those who respect the taxpaying public. Shame on the AG city council!


21

More time than the meetings is required to be effective as a council person. You answer correspondence, meet with constituents, study issues, and more. I am certain they spend well in excess of 32 hours monthly. If that is all they spend their compensation is $20 per hour. That’s not very much to deal with the gadflies that want their 3 minutes of fame every month.


-26

Bet they are in it more for the ego than the money. Dealing with the “gadflies” comes with the territory when your “elected”.


15

Each Arroyo Grande City Council member made $7,892.64 last year*.

Barniech took an additional $22,670 in benefits.

Mayor Ray Russom made $9,719.40 and took an additional $1,243.00 in benefits. Plus, she made $1,100 from Sanitation District stipends.

*Transparent California


Compare that to the law on Community Services District Board member compensation — they often work as hard as a City Council member — and they are restricted to $100 per meeting (only $50 for a committee meeting), all combined not to exceed $600 per month. No benefits!


The point isn’t really the money their paid, it’s the job they signed up for. To SERVE the public, which would include listening to what their concerns are. for heavens sake, it’s just 3 minutes!


1

There’s a way to confront this kind of nonsense: Civil disobedience. A large crowd of residents at a meeting, each speaking for one minute and thirty seconds, or until being gaveled out of order. Next speaker, same message, same procedure.


30

Excellent opinion piece Julie. Thanks for calling out the council’s blatant attempt to usurp free speech. Not putting this item on the agenda demonstrates what cowards these “elected officials” are.


45
1 2