At the Council�s annual Goal Setting meeting held on Saturday, May 5, 2007, several of the Council Members raised the issue of the possible streamlining of Council meetings.  Then the issue was raised again at the regular Council meeting of May 8, 2007.  Although �streamlining� of meetings may mean a variety of things to different people, it can be concluded that it at least includes frequency, length and timing of meetings, oral communications, electronic voting, and public copies of the documents provided to the Council Members.  The following will provide a summary of the applicable law and some of the options available for the Council in order to provide an opportunity for discussion and direction to staff in these areas.

FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS

For many years the Charter has required that the Burbank City Council conduct its regular Council meetings on a weekly basis.  Except for vacations, meetings scheduled for election days, and the occasional lack of a quorum to conduct meetings, the Council has done so.  However, at the election held on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, the voters approved an amendment to the Charter which provides:

�The regular meetings of the Council shall be held at least twice per month and such further regular meetings shall be held as determined by ordinance.�

In making this recommendation to the electorate, the Charter Review Committee reviewed the Charters of a number of comparison charter cities as well as the Model City Charter.  The comparison cities and the frequency of their meetings are as follows:

a.         The Charter of the City of Anaheim (population - approximately 322,000) provides that the City Council shall meet at least twice per month, and the City Council actually meets twice per month.   

b.         The Charter of the City of Cerritos (population - approximately 53,000) provides that the City Council shall meet at least once per month, and the City Council actually meets twice per month. 

c.         The Charter of the City of Culver City (population - approximately 40,000) provides that the City Council shall meet at least twice per month, and the City Council actually meets twice per month.   

d.         The Charter of the City of Glendale (population - approximately 200,000) provides that the City Council shall meet as set by ordinance or resolution, and the City Council actually meets weekly. 

e.         The Charter of the City of Huntington Beach (population - approximately 195,000) provides that the City Council shall meet at least twice per month, and the City Council actually meets twice per month. 

f.          The Charter of the City of Inglewood (population - approximately 115,000) provides that the City council shall meet at least once per week, and the City Council generally meets once per week, but sometimes may go a month without meetings. 

g.         The Charter of the City of Long Beach (population - approximately 475,000) provides that the City Council shall meet as set by ordinance, and the City Council generally meets three and sometimes four times per month. 

h.         The Charter of the City of Pasadena (population - approximately 140,000) provides that the City Council shall meet as set by ordinance, and the City Council actually meets every other week. 

i.          The Charter of the City of Santa Ana (population - approximately 340,000) provides that the City Council shall meet as set by ordinance, and the City Council actually meets twice per month. 

j.          The Charter of the City of Santa Monica (population - approximately 87,000) provides that the City Council shall meet at least twice per month, and the City Council actually meets twice per month. 

k.         The Charter of the City of Torrance (population - approximately 142,000) provides that the City Council shall meet at least once per month, and the City Council actually meets weekly, with dark meetings specified throughout the year. 

l.          The Charter of the City of Ventura (population � approximately 104,000) provides that the City Council shall meet at least once per month, and the City Council actually meets weekly, except as otherwise designated by the City Council, and except that the Council only meets on the first week in August and then not until after Labor Day.

This information is summarized in the attached table.

Certainly, there may be any number of reasons why seemingly comparable cities are not comparable for Council meeting purposes, but the fact that so many cities find that the business of the city may be accomplished while meeting only twice per month seems persuasive.  It should also be noted that if four meetings a month were replaced by two, it wouldn�t mean that the meetings would be twice as long.  Much of what takes place during meetings is repetitive and would therefore not be doubled.

Under the new Charter provision the Council may choose to meet two, three, or four Tuesdays per month, or may choose to continue to meet each and every Tuesday.  Additionally, the Council could choose to meet most Tuesdays but could formally outline a process where the Council does not meet on certain dates during the summer, and/or during certain parts of the holiday season, and on election days.  Should the Council choose to meet less frequently than currently, additional meetings, as necessary, could be set as provided in state law for continued, special or, in the case of a disaster or other emergency, urgency meetings.  Once a new meeting schedule is determined, the Council could certainly revisit the issue if it is determined to not be often enough to accomplish the business of the City.

LENGTH OF MEETINGS  

As the Council members are aware, lately there have been some very long Council meetings.  Some years ago the Council adjusted the beginning time of Council meetings from 7:00 p.m. to 6:30 in an attempt to help in this area.  Suggested reasons for meetings lasting late into the evening or into the next morning have included:  The various presentations at the beginning of the meeting,[1] the length and number of oral communications periods,[2] the fact that oral communications periods are televised, the number and length of public hearings,[3] and at least the perceived monopolization of the speaking opportunities by certain Council Members.[4]

Whatever the reason, it is clear that important governmental decisions oftentimes involving substantial public funds and important public and private interests cannot receive the clearest thought and attention by Council or staff when the meetings extend into the wee hours of the morning.

Some agencies have adopted a rule to place a cut-off time for meetings.  This could be handled in different ways.  The Council could provide that the meeting must end at a certain time, or that no new item may be taken up after the cut-off time is reached.  As part of such a provision it could be provided that the cut-off time may only be exceeded by unanimous vote of the Council.  This is similar to a rule that was previously in place at the Burbank School Board.

It should also be noted that the length of staff presentations may contribute to the ultimate length of the meetings.  Staff must walk a fine line between providing enough information so that the interested members of the public understand what is being proposed and the underlying reasons, and that the Council has sufficient information to make their decision, and in merely repeating what is already outlined in the written staff report.  Staff has taken steps to assure that the verbal staff reports are accurate and provide sufficient information, and yet do not go overboard.  This is always a matter of ongoing vigilance.

TIMING OF MEETINGS

For many years the meetings of the Burbank City Council have been held in the evening.  This is not required by law and is not the practice followed by many other cities.  For example, the City of Glendale regularly conducts a portion of its meetings during the day.  Many cities will begin their meetings in the morning and then, if necessary, break for lunch and return in the afternoon to complete any remaining business.  There are certainly pros and cons for both approaches.

In support of holding meetings in the daytime the thought is that meetings would be held when the Council and staff are both fresh and when minds are clear, rather than after a full work day.  Additionally, all necessary staff resources would be available if questions should arise in the middle of a meeting, rather than finding that the necessary staff person has gone home.  If the meeting is begun earlier in the day, then even if it should run long there is enough time to complete the business before getting into the late hours of the evening.  It should be noted that late-night meetings not only affect how those involved work at the meeting, but also affect how they function during the subsequent work day.

Of course, there are also arguments against having daytime meetings.  Having the meeting during the day makes it more difficult for interested members of the public to attend.[5]  In addition, daytime meetings could adversely affect the pool of candidates able and willing to run for Council, leaving only those who are retired, self-employed, or otherwise able to take off during the day available to serve.  Since the daytime is when the downtown and civic area is most busy, daytime meetings may find less parking available for the public who wish to attend Council meetings. 

Rather than conduct all of the Council meetings during the day or during the evening, the Council could determine to conduct only parts of the meetings during the day, or conduct all of some meetings during the day and others in the evening.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

From time to time the Council considers the length, configuration and subject limitations of the various Oral Communication periods which are part of the City Council meetings.  Although the Council has some latitude in this area, there are significant statutory enactments and judicial decisions that govern the opportunities that the members of the public have to address their locally elected bodies.

Background

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in discussing regulation of Oral Communications at meetings of City Councils in California made this statement in White v. City of Norwalk (1990) 900 F.2d 1421, 1425:

�. . . [A] City Council meeting is still just that, a governmental process with a governmental purpose.  The Council has an agenda to be addressed and dealt with.�

It is a delicate balance to be struck between allowing reasonable Oral Communications by interested members of the public and appropriately taking care of the public�s business.  There are those who would contend that all else must give way to the public�s right to address the Council, even if the agenda of the Council is not reached until the wee hours of the morning.  Likewise some would argue that in a representative democracy once the Council is elected, the public should stay out of their way and there is no need for Oral Communications.  The legal and practical balance lies between those two extremes.

As part of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code �54954.3 states in pertinent part as follows:

�(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body�s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body . . .

�(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.

�(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.   . . .�

This statutory provision clearly provides that members of the public have a right to address the Council on any item on the agenda before or during the Council consideration of that item.  In addition, members of the public may address the Council on any item that falls within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council, that is, on items where the Council has the legal authority to take some action, even though such item may not be on the agenda for that meeting.  The courts have provided us some limited guidance on this statute.

The case of White v. City of Norwalk (1990) 900 F.2d 1421, referenced above, considered acts that occurred prior to the adoption of this section but is still instructive.  On at least two occasions the plaintiff, Walter E. White, in speaking to the Norwalk City Council was ruled out of order for being unduly repetitive.  In considering his challenge to the City�s rules on addressing the Council, the court concluded (a part of which was quoted above):

�We are dealing not with words uttered on the street to anyone who chooses or chances to listen; we are dealing with meetings of the Norwalk City Council, and with speech that is addressed to that Council.  Principles that apply to random discourse may not be transferred without adjustment to this more structured situation.

�City Council meetings like Norwalk�s, where the public is afforded the opportunity to address the Council, are the focus of highly important individual and governmental interests.  Citizens have an enormous first amendment interest in directing speech about public issues to those who govern their city.  It is doubtless partly for this reason that such meetings, once opened, having been regarded as public forums, albeit limited ones.   . . .

�On the other hand, a City Council meeting is still just that, a governmental process with a governmental purpose.  The Council has an agenda to be addressed and dealt with.  Public forum or not, the usual first amendment antipathy to content-oriented control of speech cannot be imported into the Council chambers intact.  In the first place, in dealing with agenda items, the Council does not violate the first amendment when it restricts public speakers to the subject at hand.  (Citations omitted)  While a speaker may not be stopped from speaking because the moderator disagrees with the viewpoint he is expressing, (Citations omitted) it certainly may stop him if his speech becomes irrelevant or repetitious.

�Similarly, the nature of a Council meeting means that a speaker can become �disruptive� in ways that would not meet the test of actual breach of the peace.  (Citation omitted) . . .  A speaker may disrupt a Council meeting by speaking too long, by being unduly repetitious, or by extended discussion of irrelevancies.  The meeting is disrupted because the Council is prevented from accomplishing its business in a reasonably efficient manner.  Indeed, such conduct may interfere with the rights of other speakers.�  (at pgs. 1425-1426; footnotes omitted)

So it must be kept it mind that although the right and ability to address the Council is an important one, that right is not unfettered, because the fundamental purpose of City Council meetings is to conduct the business of the City, to consider and act on the matters that appear on the agenda.

Then in Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1995) 67 F.3d 266, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the challenge to the Santa Monica Rent Control Board.  In the meetings of the Rent Control Board, Public Comments on non-agenda items were only allowed at the end of the meeting.  However, Mr. Kindt wished to speak regarding the flag salute before the flag salute period, and wished to speak concerning the public announcements, also before the announcements were made.  As a result of his requests being denied, he would loudly disrupt the meetings.  First the Court made this statement relative to basic First Amendment rights:  �Citizens are not entitled to exercise their First Amendment rights whenever and wherever they wish.� (at pg. 269)  Then referencing United States Supreme Court Justice Stewart, the Court noted:

�. . . [p]ublic bodies must have a rather broad authority to structure meetings, even if that requires limiting subject matter and number and types of speakers.�  (at pg. 270)

The Court went on to approve the three minute time limit on comments and the restriction to the specified comment period. 

In the unpublished case of Concerned Citizens Against the Land Grab v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (No. B125374 [2^nd District, December 7, 1999]), the Court of Appeals approved a one minute limitation on speakers at the hearing on the adoption of a redevelopment plan amendment.  This decision was subsequently approved by the State Supreme Court, although the time limitation was not discussed.

In Chaffee v. San Francisco Public Library Com.  (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, the Court of Appeal upheld the action of the San Francisco Public Library Commission during a particular meeting reduced speakers from the three minute �normal� speaking limit to two minutes per speaker because it determined that it would not be able to complete its agenda within a reasonable period of time.[6]   The City of San Francisco had adopted rules allowing speakers to speak �up to� three minutes.  The Court concluded that the Brown Act has no specific time requirement but requires only that a public body adopt reasonable regulations to ensure public comment.  Under both the Brown Act and San Francisco�s own ordinance, while restrictions on public comment may not be applied unreasonably or arbitrarily, there are certainly circumstances where more strict time limits than usual are necessary, e.g., in order to allow every member of the public who wishes to speak on an item to do so, to complete a meeting with a lengthy agenda within a reasonable period of time, etc.  The Court concluded that public entities are allowed to exercise reasonable discretion in setting and departing from �normal� time limits and that there were no law violations in this case.

With reference to the above-noted statutory right to criticize the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body, the federal case of Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School District (1996) 936 F.Supp. 719, considered a rule of the Moreno Valley Unified School District that speakers at Board meetings could not criticize employees of the district.  First the Court looked to the California Constitution:

�Thus, under the California Constitution, District�s Board may not censor speech by prohibiting citizens from speaking, even if their speech is, or may be, defamatory.�  (at pg. 727)

The Court determined that the rule was also contrary to the Brown Act, and issued a preliminary injunction against the District.  (See also Leventhal v. Vista Unified School District (1997) 973 F.Supp. 951)

Current Procedure

With this legal background it is clear that the City Council has some latitude in how it structures Oral Communications.  The current practice has four periods of general Oral Communications (excluding any discussion of public comments made during noticed public hearings).  First, Oral Communications for a designated maximum of three minutes for each speaker are allowed prior to the Council going into Closed Session.  This session is designated on the agenda as �Closed Session Oral Communications.�  These comments are to be directed to the items listed on the Closed Session Agenda, and are not televised.  Second, �Initial Open Public Comment Period of Oral Communications� for a maximum of two minutes for each speaker are held prior to the regular agenda (but after the presentations, announcements and noticed public hearings).  These comments may include agenda items and any other item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City and are televised along with the rest of the City Council Meeting.  Next, is a period called �Agenda Item Oral Communications� which allows a maximum of four minutes for each speaker.  During this period of Oral Communications speakers may address any �action� item on the agenda.  Finally, the �Final Open Public Comment Period of Oral Communications� allows two minutes for each speaker and is held at the end of the meeting.  This speaking period is again open to any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, but is limited to those speakers who did not speak at the �Initial Open Public Comment Period of Oral Communications.�  Originally, this last period of Oral Communications was instituted to provide (at that time) the only period of Oral Communications where the public could address the Council on any item within the subject matter jurisdiction or the Council.  In addition, this period of Oral Communications was originally not televised.

For several years prior to the adoption of the current meeting rules, just prior to the Council taking up agenda items, the period of Oral Communications was set at five minutes and was open to any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, agenda or non-agenda items.  What the Council found was that many speakers took the opportunity to speak during this period on non-agenda items, relegating those members of the public who came to speak to an agenda item often to a time very late in the evening.  It was the hope that in adopting the current procedure that those who wanted to speak to the Council about a trash pick-up problem or another community need could do so without waiting for the entire agenda, and those who wanted to speak to specific agenda items could do so without the need to wait for lengthy periods of non-agenda comments. 

The following is a chart of the current and recent actions of the Council in fashioning a workable Oral Communications procedure:

�Action� Items

There may be some question about the current limitation which requires speakers during the �Agenda Item Oral Communications� to address only �action� items.  This measure was adopted by the Council due to the practice of some speakers during this period of Oral Communications of selecting an innocuous item listed on the agenda and twisting it in an attempt to speak about some item which was actually a non-agenda item.  �Action� items are those items on the agenda that fall within the business portion of the meeting.  They would include the Consent Calendar and any of the Reports to Council, even if no specific �action� is contemplated.  �Action� items would also include the Closed Session items, although they precede the main portion of the agenda.[7]  They would also include Public Hearings although such hearings have their own Oral Communications period.[8]  �Action� items do not include: the invocation, the flag salute, the roll call, announcements, the recognitions and presentations, the Airport Authority Report, or perceived attacks by other speakers.  Certainly members of the public are not prevented from speaking on these items, just not during the Agenda Item Oral Communications period.

Reporting Out of Boards and Commissions

Currently the Burbank appointees on the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Commission report on the Council�s agenda following the regular meetings of the Airport Commission.  It has been suggested that perhaps other boards and commissions also be placed on the agenda for such reports.  In the past, when members of some board or commission have given reports to the Council they have done so on the regular agenda under the two minute Oral Communications.  However, some have found the many actions difficult to condense into that time period.  Although a special agenda item can be placed on the agenda for the reporting of all or selected boards and commissions, if the Council changes the Oral Communications periods to just have one longer period prior to the agenda items, such reports would be more easily made in the extended time period.  In addition, if the numerous City boards and commissions were each provided the opportunity to report on their activities during Council meetings the length of the meetings would likely be significantly extended.

Rather than have a separate opportunity on the agenda on the actions of boards and commissions, the Council could go back to an earlier practice of appointing Council members to act as liaisons to these boards and commissions and bring to the Council�s attention matters that the various boards and commissions feel should be raised.

Implementation

Historically, we have found that whenever the Council has considered changes to the Oral Communications periods, certain individuals have wanted to have all, or virtually all, restrictions dropped, and others, usually less vocal, have wanted the Council to impose greater restrictions.  The Council, to its credit, has attempted to adopt provisions that allow the members of the public the greatest opportunity to address their elected officials, and yet still protect the ability to get the business of the City done.  When changes have been implemented there is almost always some tension at the beginning.  But as the new rules are made clear and consistently applied, the members of the public have been very good about following the new format. 

Even within the Brown Act requirements, the permutations of the various Oral Communications provisions of the different cities are myriad.  The City of Glendale provides one period of Oral Communications allowing each speaker five minutes to address the Council, but the five minute limitation may be waived or altered by the Mayor.  The agenda of the City of Pasadena notifies speakers that there is a twenty minute oral communications period at the beginning of the meeting with each speaker being allowed up to three minutes.  If all speakers do not get an opportunity to speak then the oral communications is continued to the end of the meeting.  Other cities allow speakers to address the city council for a limited period of time as each agenda item comes up.  This can often result in the same speakers speaking multiple times.  Other cities have a limited speaking period similar to that employed in Pasadena and the available time is divided into the number of speakers.  For instance, if there was a thirty minute time period and thirty speakers, each speaker would receive one minute to address the council.  Usually in these situations there is still a maximum speaking time, so that if there were thirty minutes available and only two speakers they wouldn�t each be allowed to speak fifteen minutes, but three or five minutes or whatever maximum had been determined.  Logic dictates that in such a procedure there should also be a minimum speaking time as well, so that each speaker is not allotted just a few seconds to speak.  This dividing of time based on the number of speakers has informally been employed by the Council on occasion and was used several years ago by the City�s PERC Committee.

ELECTRONIC VOTING

Rather than the traditional roll-call vote, or the call for the ayes and nays by the presiding officer, more and more public agencies are moving to electronic voting.  This is a rather simple process which records the votes by each member of the public body and when �recorded� by the Clerk is also displayed for the public to view.  Electronic voting has several benefits, not the least of which is expediting the meeting. 

Under the vocal vote system, those members of the public body voting last can watch the previous votes and determine the outcome of the question before they cast their votes.  Electronic voting would not allow the members to be aware of how anyone else had voted before all the votes are cast and displayed.

Although the time is minimal, calling the roll does take some time to complete which in a cumulative nature adds to the length of a meeting.  More importantly, some members of public bodies feel the need as their vote is taken, to further explain their vote.  That motivation seems to be lessened when electronic voting is employed.  Certainly the reason for a particular vote is important, and may often need to be shared both with other members of the public body and the audience.  But normally that would have been fully taken care of in the preceding deliberations.

PUBLIC COPIES OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL

As part of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code �54957.5(b) provides in pertinent part:

�Writings that are public records . . . and that are distributed during a public meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by the local agency or a member of its legislative body, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person.�

It is becoming a more common practice for members of the public as they come to speak to the Council under the various periods of oral communications, to also provide documentary material.  Sometimes only one copy is provided, but generally five copies are passed up to the dais, one for each member of the Council.  Although it is not required to provide the public with copies until after the meeting because the material was not prepared by the City, staff has endeavored to make copies available immediately so that the public can have access to the same material that is being reviewed by the Council.  It is, however, difficult to �borrow� one of the copies being reviewed by a Council Member in order to make the copies for the public because, of course, they are pertinent to what the member of the public is saying, and that benefit would be lost if a copy is taken off to make additional copies.  Additionally, the City Clerk needs a copy of material provided to the Council to keep in the file of what was considered at the meeting, and such additional copy is rarely provided.

Some agencies have resolved this issue by requiring that a speaker, when presenting material to the Council, bring an extra number of copies to meet those additional requirements.  Certainly if a speaker is already making five copies of a document for the Council Members it would take little cost and effort to make twenty additional copies to share with the public and the City Clerk.  Additionally, there may be a question whether it is appropriate to put the City taxpayers to the cost of making copies of an individual�s documentary material that he or she is providing to make a point.

CONCLUSION

As the City Council considers how to �streamline� Council meetings,  the Council may want to look at the frequency of meetings as provided in the recent changes to the City Charter, institute some control on the length of Council meetings, consider holding some or all of the Council meetings during the day, review the categories and length of Oral Communications, and require that additional copies of material being provided to the City Council also be provided for review by the public and to be maintained in the City Clerk�s file.

It is recommended that the Council consider adopting a package of changes to alleviate the problem, including the following:

1.         Frequency of meetings:

Generally meet on the first three Tuesdays of each month, with no meetings on holidays or City election days.   However, the Council would look at whether additional meetings would be needed, particularly in May for budget purposes, would not meet on the first Tuesday of July, August or September, and would meet only on the first two Tuesdays of November and December.

2.         Timing of Meetings:

Meetings would begin at 5:00 p.m.,[9] with study sessions, budget study sessions and Closed Sessions to be held in the afternoon.

3.         Oral Communications:

Rather than the current four periods of Oral Communications, the Oral Communications would be revised as follows:  Two minutes before Closed Session; up to four minutes before Agenda items (on agenda items and any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council.  Individual speaking time may be reduced if the number of speakers would make it difficult to conclude the business of the City within a reasonable time.); four minutes for speakers at public hearings; and no additional period of Oral Communications at the conclusion of the meeting.

4.         Length of Meetings:

Meetings may not last past 11:00 p.m. without a unanimous vote of the Council Members present.

5.         Documents Presented to the Council:

Speakers seeking to present documents to the City Council must provide twenty-five copies, or the documents will not be accepted.  This caution would be displayed on the agenda.

Staff will bring back the appropriate implementing documents in accordance with any direction provided by the Council.

go to the top