On Tuesday, the Clayton City Council agreed to change how agendas are set, did away with hybrid meetings and justified actions citing better “efficiency” over transparency.
The main focus Tuesday with council guidelines being changed was giving the mayor full authority on agenda setting and when/if future agenda item requests, no longer verbal during meetings, but rather in writing, would be placed on an agenda. It would prevent the public and other council members from knowing what has been requested or the status of a request.
What to know:
- Mayor Now has full control over agenda setting — some items likley will be ignored or never brought forward
- All future agenda item requests must be done in writing — public will likley not be aware of requests nor status
- Council did away with hybrid meeting — only viewing meetings, no more public participation online
- Council admitted they wanted more items written into agendas to ensure “efficient” and faster meetings.
- Majority council fine with limiting public access, stating community could write to them before meetings.
- Have done away with verbal reporting out by councilmember committees
- Have adjusted the order of city council agendas
- Mayor can now limit public comments to 20-minutes, move the rest to the end of the meeting
By agreeing to changes in council guidelines, under the proposal of Mayor Kim Trupiano and Vice Mayor Jeff Wan, it ensures likely future Brown Act Violations will occur – given more than two council members cannot discuss an item prior to a public meeting.
Under the most likley scenario in agenda setting, no councilmember could discuss an item request prior to requesting the item in writing as it goes to the mayor, resulting in two members of the council discussing the request (the requester + the mayor). However, should the vice mayor join the mayor in agenda setting meetings as proposed and stated, it would then result in a Brown Act Violation each time an agenda item request is made as more than two members of the council now have discussed an item.
Editor’s Note – other cities had similar policies only to undo them. Antioch had a similar policy in place but did away with it after the mayor was not placing agenda item requests on the agenda. In Brentwood, back in 2022, Brentwood faced similar issues when attempting to issue a censure – since two councilmembers spoke, they could not request it to the mayor since it would result in a Brown Act Violation as two councilmembers spoke about an item followed by the mayor now discussing it.
On Tuesday, Clayton City Manager Kris Lofthus shared that a red-line version and clean version were available in the staff report – however, the council declined for Lofthus to go through the changes for the public to understand with Mayor Kim Trupiano stating she assume everyone had read the changes to the council guidelines calling it “sufficient” (see guidelines here)
According to the staff report, some of the items being proposed include:
Clayton Agenda Setting Changes
- Item 1. Agendas a. Formation 2. — Any member of the Council may request that an item be placed on a future agenda by contacting the Mayor and City Manager in writing.
- Item 1. Agendas a. Formation 4. — It is the Mayor’s discretion as to whether a requested agenda item will appear at a regularly scheduled meeting, after consultation with the City Manager regarding availability of staff time to prepare necessary reports and the extent and number of items already scheduled for each upcoming Council meeting.
Clayton Public Comments Changes
- The updated changes provides the mayor more authority to limit public comments due to time—set a time limit (such as 20 minutes and the rest of the comments go at the end of the meeting) and polls the audience of speakers.
Per the staff report, it gives mayor authority on agenda setting
Prior to public comments, Councilwoman Holly Tillman questioned why they were making changes to how items were going to be placed on agendas going forward.
Trupiano shared they were asking that all future agenda item requests would be in writing to herself and the city manager. They would review them in one-on-one or agenda setting meetings to determine priorities. They would then determine staff resources and if they had ability in the future to place it on an agenda.
“How is that different other than putting it in writing?” asked Tillman.
Vice Mayor Jeff Wan interjected calling it “not a substantive change to the prior guidelines and I think it cleans up language.”
Tillman responded the change is they no longer ask for the item during the meeting, which is a change. The mayor and city manager then confer and figure out priority and urgency.
“It now currently reads whether or not it will be on there,” shared Tillman. “That is different because the mayor is then choosing whether or not to put it on the agenda. That is different.”
Wan responded, “in my view, its effectively the same thing” while claiming “whether” vs “which” while being different words were the same thing.
Tillman asked Wan if he would be willing to keep “which” and not “whether”.
Wan never answered the question as Trupiano jumped back in, stating they changed the word was to ensure they had staff resources. She acknowledged that not everyone’s agenda requests would make it onto an agenda.
Tillman then asked how other councilmembers would know what has been requested.
“I don’t know if they will,” responded Trupiano. “Is that important to know what the other councilmembers are requesting? Are you worried about duplicity?”
Tillman said she was worried about transparency, as well as duplicity, but also whether something was “punted or denied” while understanding what the concerns of other councilmembers were—if its only going to the mayor and city manager, it was still private.
“The rest of the members don’t know what has been requested, its still private,” explained Tillman. “There is no light of day to know what that is. Its not clear why we would move to not verbalizing that for all of us.”
Trupiano explained her goal was to “be efficient” and bring back as much as she can to the agenda but they would be limited because they have a lot of work ahead of us.
“I think your going to have to believe the city manager and I are going to make the right decision,” stated Trupiano.
Tillman responded stating, “Its not a mistrust” but rather a transparency issue and they were moving backwards by providing less transparency to the council and the public about what future agenda item requests would be.
“This seems back to behind closed doors and I just don’t know why we would move to that,” said Tillman who questioned why they would remove asking for an item verbally during a meeting and putting it in writing. She also disagreed that, “which and whether” mean the same thing. “I don’t know why we are changing what we are doing.”
Wan agreed, he proposed staff find a way to keep a list and make it available to the council and public.
Tillman said a list was good, but wanted there to be transparency from the Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Manager to what the asks have been and if its not going to be on an agenda, what is the process for notification.
Councilmember Rich Enea agreed with Tillman in knowing what items are being requested as they may also be thinking something or interested in discussing it further.
After public comments, the council further discussed the item.
Wan stated again the changes reflected in the council guidelines were “substantive changes”. He also called these guidelines for how they conduct themselves but were not controlling. He called it “fairly routine” and was about “efficiency” and “non-discussion” items.
Councilmember Jim Diaz called them “guidelines” and need to be reviewed and brought up to date. He said the changes will ensure more efficiency and limit discission and on point.
Along with concerns over agenda setting, Tillman further shared concerns on removal of committee reports not being shared and asked where the residents voices were who sit on committees.
“It’s missing. You have city manager reports, no city council members reporting out as it’s all in writing and to me it seems like we are trying to silence the community,” explained Tillman. “I don’t want it to feel that way and we are hearing from people that it does. It was clear that there was a goal to silence what you consider extra words that are being said, but there is a purpose, and I have been crystal clear why I have been asking for those at the end of meetings. But it will end up coming out sooner or later. I think we need to be very careful and that this doesn’t go down the road of trying to keep people in chambers from trying to speak. We owe it to the residents to be clear on what the real agenda is besides efficiency.”
Enea said there was nothing new in the changes in guidelines and people didn’t want to hear committee reports, but rather, it is placed into the written record and Clayton residents could read it.
Trupiano reiterated the changes were not about being “less transparent” but called for the vote.
The council voted 4-1 to approve the changes with Tillman dissenting.
Trupiano Willing to Meet with Tillman Over Item Request
During the meeting, Trupiano said she has extended an invite to Tillman to meet over why she wants an investigation placed on the agenda regarding the City of Clayton. But claimed she had not yet heard back from Tillman.
Tillman responded by stating she had already put the item in writing over a year ago and also had Brown Act concerns since she had already discussed it with another councilmember so she wanted the city attorney to clarify if she and the mayor would commit a Brown Act by meeting about the request.
It’s unclear if or when the two would meet to place the item on a future agenda.
Clayton Votes to End Hybrid Meetings
The Clayton City Council voted 4-1 to discontinue hybrid meetings—online participation through Zoom. Councilwoman Holly Tillman was the dissenting vote.
Going forward, for public participation, one will either need to email a public comment or show up in person to offer public comment.
City Manager Kris Lofthus clarified Tuesday that all meetings will still be streamed and posted online for the public to view while stating there was “no true fiscal impact” to the item. Lofthus said at the meeting they did not yet know what platform they would use.
Mayor Kim Trupiano stated this was taking the council back to pre-pandemic and offer more efficiency while streamlining the meeting—noting people could simply write to the council or come in person with their 3-minutes.
Tillman rejected the idea of “efficiency” stating people speaking “spark” things for people to further discuss while one of their goals and priorities included accessibility and limiting communication in the moment is hindering that.
Councilmember Jim Diaz cited how many other cities have done away with hybrid meetings – such as Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek. He said Clayton was moving in the right direction in joining others stating this was set up to keep people distances which has been over for some time and move back to a normal way of conducting business.
Several public speakers spoke against the idea of ending hybrid meetings noting accessibility, increasing public participation, and allows community to hear more perspectives.
Trupiano addressed the accessibility issue saying folks could still watch the meetings live online and still be able to submit public comments through email or speak in person.
Diaz added that an agenda is published 72-hours in advance and people can write a comment, email councilmembers and still have access to the council. People will still get streaming so they could hear it.
Tillman said she heard the public state they were not concerned about limiting access to the council, but limiting accessibility to speak to the council during the meeting. She urged the council to listen to the wants of the community.
Vice Mayor Jeff Wan said he appreciated the comments on accessibility but called it “hyperbolic to say democracy was at risk.” He said there was a confusion on the fundamental purpose of what city council meetings were.
“In this setting, the purpose of our meeting is not a dialogue with the public, we are not allowed to have a dialogue with the public, the purpose of our meeting is to do the people’s business here among ourselves and have a discussion. Th meetings are public so they are transparent, and people can witness it and they can offer comment if they want,” stated Wan. “The meetings are meant for us to conduct our business and for us to discuss among ourselves.”
He continued.
“The idea that we have folks thinking they are participating remotely is laudable but it is not actually a dialogue where we can listen to you but we cannot address what you are saying,” said Wan. “In the interest of efficiency of the meetings, it allows us to conduct our business in the most expeditious way possible. It reduces the overall burden of staff… to me, it is a matter of efficiency.”
Trupiano closed by stating they were not limiting access as folks can still watch the meetings and submit public comments. Meetings would still be recorded on available to Clayton residents and the public.
The Clayton City Council then voted 4-1 to end hybrid meetings.
Clayton City Council Meeting Video — click here
Other Cities and Hybrid Meetings Around Contra Costa County
- March 14, 2024 – Brentwood decides not to bring back virtual public comments
- Oct 19, 2023 – Pleasant Hill Suspends Remote Participation at Meetings
- 4, 2023 – Walnut Creek Ends Zoom Public Comments
- 29, 2023 – El Cerrito suspends Zoom Public Comments
- 27, 2023 – Antioch opts not to bring back Zoom Comments
- March 2, 2023 – Antioch Does Away with Remote Participation at Council meetings
- March 1, 2023 – Lafayette returns to in-person meetings
1 comment
Clayton on left side of learning curve.
Elections have consequences.