San Diego Supervisors approve policy changes to limit disruptive conduct at meetings
Speaker 1: (00:00)
The San Diego county board of supervisors has approved new rules of conduct for public testimony at board meetings, the new rules include shorter speaking times and more discretion by the board chair to address threatening or profane language used by speakers. The changes come after a series of hostile public meetings, culminating in a threatening and racist rant. Last week by one public speaker, the new rules were approved on a three to one vote with one supervisor absent. Joining me is KPBS reporter John Carol and John. Welcome. Thank you, Maureen. Now nobody likes to be the target of hostile comments, but did the board outline why the public testimony rules needed to be changed?
Speaker 2: (00:43)
Yeah, a board chair and Nathan Fletcher and the vice-chair and nor a Vargas really have taken the lead on this. They went to great lengths to say they understand is public officials getting criticized. And even to a point, getting insulted just comes with the territory. But Fletcher says the public comment part of the board meetings lately has gone way beyond criticism and name calling. He said, things have really been getting worse for the last couple of years, but he said over the last couple of months, it's gotten to an unacceptable level with people yelling at speakers, whistling, stomping, their feet. I think this all really culminated in what you were just referring to Maureen and the testimony from a man last week, identifying himself as Jason robo, that meeting had to do with COVID safety measures. He said that supervisor Lawson reamers should hang from a tree. He called supervisor Vargas fat. He said, Fletcher should blow his brains out. And then he turned to county public health officer Dr. Wilma Wooten, who he called an out Jamaima, which has of course a reference to a black woman who was a servant to white families. For all those reasons. Fletcher, Vargas and Lawson rivers say it's gotten to the point where all the bad behavior is affecting the ability of the board to get things done. So of course these new rules are intended to put an end to that kind of disruptive behavior.
Speaker 1: (01:56)
How are public comment times shortened by these
Speaker 2: (01:59)
New rules? Well, public speaking time has typically been limited to two minutes per person. These new rules allow the board share Fletcher to determine if they should be limited to just one minute in circumstances where there's lots of people who want to address one topic, like for instance, COVID rules, the new rules also allow the chair to change how group presentations go. The way it has been is that one person could theoretically speak for seven or eight minutes. Just leaving a few for the other people in the group. Now Fletcher will be able to make it so that everyone in the group is limited to four minutes. The idea being to make group presentations more equitable for everybody in the group, the potential change to just one minute per person definitely received the most pushback from collars. Some of whom said they agreed with some of the other rule changes, but people saying one minute, just isn't enough to say once piece
Speaker 1: (02:49)
The boards, new rules also restrict the behavior of the audience at meetings. Tell us about that.
Speaker 2: (02:55)
Yeah. That's going to be interesting to see how that plays out. If you've attended any board meetings of later, if you've watched them on the live stream, you know, they've really become rowdy events where people are constantly making noise. They're either cheering, speakers or cheering them on. Fletcher says he's even heard from a number of people that say they'd like to participate in the meetings, but they don't feel safe coming down to the county admin building. So it's just not a conducive atmosphere to conduct the business of government.
Speaker 1: (03:23)
Public got a chance to comment on these new public comment rules. What did people say foreign? And again,
Speaker 2: (03:30)
Well, first of all, there were about an equal number of colors, which I thought was sort of interesting. Now, since yesterday's meeting was remote, that's why they were callers. The people expressing support said what you'd buy to match and agreeing with the supervisors who support the changes. But things have just gotten out of hand collars against the changes, had a variety of reasons for opposing them. They ranged from what you might've mentioned. Freedom of speech concerns to the potential. One minute rule, a one color did have a rather colorful way to describe what will happen. He says when people are limited to one minute blast from the past, you might say
Speaker 3: (04:04)
These rules will turn board meetings into a modern version of the gong show. If you're old enough to remember what the gong show was, two minutes is short enough. There is absolutely no justification for reducing it to one minute.
Speaker 1: (04:17)
One, no vote from the board came from supervisor Joel Anderson. Why was he against the changes?
Speaker 2: (04:23)
His opposition stemmed from the amount of time the county has between posting an item, uh, sending out a letter, they say for public comment and the actual day of the meeting Anderson wanted 30 days for that time window. He says people that live in the rural areas that he represents need more lead time to prepare to drive into San Diego. But Fletcher said that would be very difficult logistically for the county to do so. It's going to stay right where it is right now, which is three days.
Speaker 1: (04:50)
And now that the new rules have passed, when do they go into effect?
Speaker 2: (04:53)
They go into effect immediately. So the next meeting of the board, which is this next Tuesday at 9:00 AM, they'll be ineffective.
Speaker 1: (05:01)
I've been speaking with KPBS reporter, John Carroll, John. Thank you.
Speaker 2: (05:04)
Thank you, Maureen.
Speaker 4: (05:07)
The county Board of Supervisors approved a policy change Wednesday intended to curtail hate speech and inappropriate conduct during county meetings, following a contentious session last week in which some members of the public used racist and threatening language.
Board Chairman Nathan Fletcher and Supervisors Terra Lawson-Remer and Nora Vargas voted in favor of the change, while Supervisor Joel Anderson opposed it. Supervisor Jim Desmond was on a pre-planned trip and absent from the meeting.
The change added a series of policies, including:
- Reading a statement on the county's policy regarding discrimination and harassment into the record during the meeting;
- Prohibiting disruptive conduct, including but not limited to loud or threatening language, whistling, clapping, stamping of feet, speaking over or interrupting the recognized speaker;
- Creating parameters for group presentations allowing them only to be given for land use or adjudicatory matters as well as a maximum time period of four minutes for individual members of each group within the 10-minute maximum;
- Limiting public comment to one minute per person if there are more than 10 individuals wishing to comment, under the Brown Act;
- Adopting a consent calendar for routine or administrative items for which debate is not anticipated;
- Asking members of the public to bring their own technology to provide presentations; and
- Codifying continued allowance of remote participation by the public to participate in board meetings.
The policies, which needed a three-vote majority, will go into effect immediately, with the next board meeting set for Nov. 16.
Following months of vitriolic public meetings, the policy change was prompted last week by a man who said he wanted several of the supervisors dead — ostensibly in response to the county's continuing efforts combating COVID-19 — and directed a racial slur at county Public Health Director Dr. Wilma Wooten, who is Black.
The remark prompted an angry response from Vargas, who peppered her retort with an expletive.
In a statement after Wednesday's special meeting, which was held via teleconference, Fletcher said the board "took action to reform our rules and procedures to ensure we can have a safe and healthy environment to conduct the people's business while allowing full public participation."
"San Diegans want to see progress on the challenges our region faces — affordable housing, homelessness, and ensuring safe and healthy communities," Fletcher added. "It is now time for us to get back to work on the real issues our region faces."
During Wednesday's meeting, Fletcher said the policy could be modified if needed. Vargas, who proposed the policy change with Fletcher — said it was unfortunate they had to meet "under these circumstances," but hoped "this will result in a more welcoming environment at the meetings."
"I've been very concerned about what I've seen," said Vargas, who added that when she was an advocate addressing the board, she was never disruptive or racist.
"We're trying to make sure that we allow for everyone to have access and opportunity to speak," Vargas said.
"I absolutely welcome differences of opinion and perspective," Vargas said, "but I really want us to figure out a way to bring back decency, kindness and respect at our public meetings."
Lawson-Remer described the vote as "one step forward today, because frankly we have an emergency," but supervisors must be open to stakeholder feedback and changing the policy if needed.
Lawson-Remer added she was very hopeful that feedback "creates a safe space with a real public forum that doesn't empower bullies and hate, because inadvertently that's what we've done."
When his name was called to vote, Anderson answered, "Sadly, no." He said he strongly condemned the hateful remarks made last week, but that residents, especially in rural communities, need more time to review agenda items.
Anderson proposed a friendly amendment to provide residents with 30 days' notice for agenda items, but Fletcher countered that would be too much of a burden, and that the full agenda is available one week before supervisors meet.
Anderson added that many communities don't have decent WiFi access, making it difficult for them to send emails to the board about an issue or watch a meeting online.
"For them to drive an hour, to get one minute, concerns me greatly," Anderson said. "We're allowing the hecklers' voice to force our hand to shut down legitimate input."
Anderson also said that after sitting through numerous board meetings, he has heard people making veiled threats.
"I signed up for this, I ran for this, and I get that people are angry with things that I do," said Anderson, who stressed that no county staffer should have to put up with such abuse.
Supervisors on Wednesday also heard from nearly 40 members of the public who called in, including business and labor group representatives.
Those in favor of the policy overhaul cited the need to have a civil forum where all residents feel comfortable speaking their mind, while opponents said any changes would threaten First Amendment rights.
Riverside County Supervisor Victor Manuel Perez said the proposal by Fletcher and Vargas was "a model for the rest California."
"We all have the right to agree or disagree," Perez said, adding that when it comes to people who make comments solely to wreak havoc, "one can only conclude the goals are to harm the democratic process."
Amy Reichert, co-founder of ReOpen San Diego — which is opposed to COVID-19 mandates -- said her group "categorically condemns the racist comments that came from one member of the public," but it opposed the policy changes.
"You have no right to decide that clapping is not appropriate," she added.
John Elliott, an East County planning group member, said changing public comment rules "is just wrong," and suggested the board get feedback from planning groups before allowing any policy change.
Kathy Kassel, president/CEO of Lakeside Chamber of Commerce, said limiting speaking time because of "a few bad apples" is not in the best interest of the county or residents.
"Our voice is just as important as your own, and I would argue it's more important," Kassel said.
Other callers noted that if members of the public can't pull agenda items off the consent calendar, that means supervisors can vote on important issues without debating them or hearing from constituents first.
The Rev. Shane Harris, president of the People's Alliance for Justice, thanked Vargas in a statement "for leading this effort at the county and understanding the racial assault that (Wooten) faced last week."
"Today marks a long-awaited start but more must be done to protect county staff and attendees," Harris said. "My office is calling on county supervisors to dig deeper into understanding where racial incitements fall on the scales of safety in the chambers. I believe today's policy proposal is only a start but ensuring the safety of county employees and attendees at meetings matter too."
Fletcher said following last week's meeting that while dissent is a healthy part of a functioning democracy, it has been sad to watch vaccine-mandate opponents launch personal attacks on board members and county officials simply because they don't agree with their policies.
"Hate speech and creating a hostile work environment for county staff will not be tolerated," he said. "The changes to our Board of Supervisors Rules and Procedures we have proposed are meant to curb the vulgar, racist and profane behavior that has occurred recently during the public comment portion of our meetings.
"The actions of some are preventing good people who truly want to participate in their government from showing up to give their testimony and that must change," Fletcher said.