On Tuesday, the Brentwood City Council agreed it will try a hybrid public comment policy in an effort to protect free speech while allowing residents to participate in meetings online.
Under the new rules agreed to by the council:
- General Public Comments – in person will be allowed at the beginning of the meeting. No Zoom.
- Agenda Items – will continue with both in person and virtual comments— comments will be limited to the agenda item, or be cut off—off topic and hate speech cut off.
- End of Meeting General Public Comments – reserved to in-person or virtual comments.
(Watch full video)
Brentwood was forced to take up the issue of virtual public comments as they were the target of vile, racist, and offensive hate speech at its Sept. 26 meeting—much like many other cities have experienced in over the past year. Brentwood came out and condemned the attack.
Staff was seeking direction from the council of how they wanted to handle virtual public comments going forward and provided several options (see chart below in background section)–several other cities simply cut it off. Staff was quick to point out virtual public comments were not a right granted under the law, but rather a courtesy provided by the City of Brentwood – noting the city by law only had to provide a space and forum.
Councilmember Jovita Mendoza said she was a proponent of the virtual public comments having fought for it during the pandemic and wanting to keep it after.
“I don’t mind if meetings go late, that is why I was elected to hear the people,” said Mendoza but she liked the suggestion of not having zoom at the beginning of the meeting during open public comments and opening it up to zoom on the agenda items. She added they should try zoom public comments on general items at the end of the meeting.
PA’Tanisha Pierson stated protecting free speech meant the world to her while providing a passionate speech (see video) about the experience and the effect of being a marginalize group impacted by hate.
“I couldn’t be affected because I am so used to hate,” stated Pierson. “As a black person and a woman, I am so adopted to hate that I couldn’t even feel it in the room and all I could be is a comforter to all the people I saw effected by it. It took me days to come out of that and then go on Zoom and someone puts a picture of cats that says n—ger. It’s a burning cross in my front yard. I am not going to minimize it.”
She stated she understood both sides and called it a good solution for those who want to talk about “whatever” to “have your asses in the seats here” and for the agenda items where they can hit the mute button if they needed to.
“Let me be clear, zoom is not connected to your free speech rights, we do not have to provide zoom. We have to provide a space and a forum and we do that right here,” stated Pierson noting zoom provided convenience for everybody to participate.
Vice Mayor Susannah Meyer thanked Pierson for her comments and how difficult it had to be to say. She was in favor of providing more accessibility to residents than not.
“I sat here that night shocked and seeing a room of older adults who were here to speak their truth on one of our agenda items. The gasping that was happening, if people were watching virtually, they did not see that, or the faces we were seeing,” said Meyer. “We were feeling this visceral reaction from the chambers and it was horrifying. And see staff and feeling the pressure from staff to cut off the calls.”
She said the city couldn’t cut off Zoom all together because those spreading hate would win.
Councilmember Tony Oerlemans said the idea of limiting public comments to in person at the beginning of the meeting and zoom at the end was great, but it also had to be understood that its not someone’s right to speak on zoom, but rather a change the city made during COVID.
“It’s not something we have done for a 100 years, this started because COVID existed and we couldn’t gather in a room together” said Oerlemans. “What did the grandmothers, moms and commuters all do before zoom, if they had something that was important enough, they came down to council and spoke their peace. Or they wrote an email.”
Mayor Joel Bryant, who stated he was a Jew, said he was very familiar with hate and had the bullet and knife wounds to prove that he has had people try and kill him rather than something he just read, but rather he experienced. He then provided 6-minutes of commentary (see video above).
“To hear the words that were an attack against my people, my blood, its insulting. I have had members on both sides of my family who have been murdered because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity. This isn’t something I read in a book, this is something we live with every day,” stated Bryant. “I do not believe that a single person, a friend, that I have seen lost in defense in this country or another country’s would have one moment of hesitation regarding this item, I believe that they think so highly of an individual’s freedom of speech that they left their home and families, many of them came back, that they found it worth fighting for. This is an item that has been vary difficult for a long-time since the last council meeting to find a solution that was both the right thing to do and would bring as much protection to those who were terrorized by the words.”
He called it an elegant solution that Meyer presented and keeping Zoom available for agenda items is something they have some level of control against the hate speech of any kind. He was also in favor of public comments in chambers.
“I am just not willing to let a certain very small, and I am trying to keep a professional attitude as much as possible in describing the individuals that are spewing this kind of vitriol and garbage, I do know in my very Midwestern American vernacular that what goes around come around every time,” said Bryant. “I am not going to let that kind of mindset, as small as it may be, win over all the years of sacrifice that the signers of the constitution sacrificed, every single person who fought for Freedom of Speech sacrificed, our children and our young people, and our seniors, they have a voice and their voice still matters and I am not willing to have that voice silenced because some idiot spews hate on Zoom. I am not willing to do that. I would much rather shut that person up when they violate the regulations and rules of these meeting than to take a risk that one of our very valued residents feels that they cannot be here, won’t be heard or are cared for. It’s a very thin line that we have to walk of what is right and what we are comfortable with but I cannot justify on my behalf, shutoff the opportunity and stop the opportunity for our residents to speak on agenda items.”
Councilmember Jovita Mendoza made the motion to move Zoom/virtual participation to only agenized items with general public comments at the beginning of the meeting be limited to in person. Zoom/virtual would be allowed at the end of the meeting.
After some clarification, in person public comments would only be allowed for the council reports, consent calendar and presentations—no virtual comments.
During public comments, several public commenters argued in favor of keeping virtual participation arguing it cuts off public participation, taking away their right to be heard and was a First Amendment issue.
Background:
Staff is asking the council to provide direction of how it wishes to move forward with the use of virtual platforms. This comes after during its Sept. 26 meeting, subjected to vile, racist, and offensive comments from anonymous public participants virtually through what is described as a “zoom attack” or “zoom bomb.”
Other cities have had to deal with Zoom public commenting where the City of Antioch rejected a proposal to bring back zoom, El Cerrito suspended zoom public commenting, while Walnut Creek announced it was ending zoom commenting.
During its Sept. 26 meeting, staff was able to mute speakers because those using hate speech were not talking on the specific agenda item—if they were able to speak during general public comments, they would be unable to mute the virtual participate.
According to the staff report, currently, the City Council allows public comment to occur both in person and virtually through Zoom. The vast majority of these recent verbal attacks across the state and country have occurred virtually, not in person. The City is not required to offer public participation via Zoom or any other virtual platform when public meetings are taking place in person. Virtual participation was instituted during the early days of the pandemic, when it was judged unsafe to meet in person and the public needed a way to participate; it has been carried over as a courtesy as public meetings have resumed and the pandemic has waned.
The council will discuss Public Participation Options:
Option A keeps the status quo, and will not stop or restrict a virtual participant from sharing hate speech.
Option B, without any additional measures, will not stop or restrict a virtual participant from sharing hate speech. The purpose of this option is to try to mitigate the impact of hate speech on residents and others participating in a council meeting. A variety of mitigation measure can be instituted, but it will not eliminate the risk.
Options C and D are the only two options that would protect the City from hate speech shared over Zoom during a Council meeting. The City Council is not required by law to allow virtual comment, and the current process was established as a courtesy to allow other options for public participation during COVID
Although options C and D would mitigate virtual hate speech, a participant could still attend in person to express their views and opinions. Just in the last month, the cities of Walnut Creek, Concord, Sacramento, Ceres, Modesto, Livermore, Redwood City, Santa Rosa and County of Santa Rosa all eliminated virtual comments due to its abuse and many more jurisdictions are considering similar measures. All of the options, including C and D, would not restrict a resident or any other individual from providing written comment to the City Council if they were unable or did not want to attend in person. Residents would still be able to view the meeting on Zoom, YouTube, and the City’s website.
According to the staff report, any change to the current public comment process will affect those seeking to participate in Brentwood’s public meetings, but this agenda item allows the City Council to discuss and consider changes. Regrettably, once a community is targeted by these vile attacks, it has not been a one-time occurrence.
2 comments
You should really include the portion of Danny Doorman in general public comments. This man is sick and twisted with his comments and victim mentality towards Pierson. Shows what type troll he is both online and in person.
Brentwood did nothing of substance because the hate speech came during a regular agenda item, not open public comments. So allowing zoom throughout a meeting does what exactly? Ensures it happens again. Instead, all this did was allow Mendoza the chance to continue with her surrogate public commentors on her behalf to make it appear she has more support than she really does. This council is going in the wrong direction and last night was another example that this. Want to issue a comment, its simple. Send an email or go to a meeting.
Love free speech. Hate THAT word. In fact, the writer of this article did what most common sense people would do, not use the word at all but imply. Other than shock value, there was NO NEED to use that word
Hypocrisy reigns supreme. Councilwoman Mendoza was chastised for her language. The council added language to ensure Decorum is paramount and inappropriate language will not be tolerated
And spoilers. Just because she’s Black does NOT give her a pass using that word
And you’re right. Last night I was all over the map. I had planned to speak specifically on the Zoom item at the time it was supposed to take place. Placing it even above public comment was unusual. To use the words of councilman Oerlemans “It’s not something that’s been done in 100 years
Comments are closed.