title
CC - ACTION ITEM: (1) Review of the Current Online Meeting Participation Practice Including Determination of Whether or Not to Continue Allowing Virtual Public Comments; and (2) Direction to the City Manager as Deemed Appropriate.
body
Meeting Date: November 13, 2023
Contact Person/Dept.: Jeremy Bocchino / City Manager’s Office
Phone Number: (310) 253-5851
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Attachments: Yes [X] No []
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas - City Council (11/07/2023)
Department Approval: Jesse Mays, Assistant City Manager (10/31/2023)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council (1) review the current online meeting participation practice, including determining whether or not to continue allowing public comments to be made virtually; and (2) provide direction to the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
At the March 14, 2022 City Council meeting Council directed the City Manager to return to in-person City Council and Commission, Board and Committee (CBC) meetings beginning April 2022 and to keep WebEx as an option for the public to remotely attend City Council and Planning commission meetings. WebEx meeting participation was added to the other CBC bodies as a courtesy in October 2022.
Over the last six months, numerous California cities have experienced what is being referred to as “Zoom bombing”. A zoom bombing occurs when a member of the public (who may be located anywhere in the world) attends a meeting remotely, requests to speak, and when they are unmuted, provide lewd or racist comments. After several racist, offensive outbursts through online public comment during the October 23, 2023 Culver City Council meeting via the City’s online portal WebEx, the City Council requested that staff look into how other city councils are handling online speakers in light of zoom bombings.
The original reason for virtual attendance at Public Meetings was so that members of the public could participate and provide live comments during the COVID 19 pandemic, when the public could not attend in person. When the COVID 19 Local Emergency ended, the option to make public comments virtually was continued in an effort to provide an additional method that the public could use to participate in the meeting. Since that time, virtual participation has always been offered as a courtesy and is not a requirement. The City currently provides many ways to view meetings: in-person or virtually from the City’s website, YouTube or via one of the City’s local cable channels. The public also has many ways of providing their “voice” aside from remote public comment. They are able to contact City Council members via email or phone, and the public can provide written comments that become part of the record of the meeting, through an online portal, which also allows for anonymity. Additionally, members of the public are able to attend in person or send someone in their place if they are unable to attend to provide in-person comments.
Research Results
To better understand how other cities are handling online speakers, staff reached out to other City Clerk’s Offices throughout the state.
Certain cities have gone back (or never stopped) holding in-person only meetings. Other cities have maintained a hybrid version of meetings, allowing for virtual speakers. We asked those cities if they continued to hold virtual meetings or stopped for at least some portion and what the deciding factors were. Those responses, plus other data collected through other city surveys are included in Attachment 1. Please note that the data is incomplete, as not all cities provided responses.
Staff also reviewed Culver City’s use of online speakers versus in-person speakers.
The City’s CBCs have very few virtual attendees. The statistics for Culver City meetings are included in Attachment 2.
SB 1100, adopted by the Legislature in August, 2022 and codified in the Brown Act as California Government Code Section 54957.95, authorizes the presiding member of a meeting body to remove or cause the removal of an individual for disrupting or impeding a meeting, but requires removal to be preceded by a warning. In this context, “disrupting” is defined as engaging in behavior that disrupts, disturbs, impedes or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of a meeting. It is important to note that speakers have a First Amendment right to express their opinion, even when offensive, racist, or profanity laced. Not all “zoom bombing” comments rise to the level of a disruption. In many instances, the offensive speech must be permitted.
Should virtual public comment continue in the future, if a meeting is disrupted, the Mayor will be required to provide the involved individuals with a warning before removing them from the meeting.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
No additional expenses would be incurred whether or not public comments were provided in-person or virtually.
ATTACHMENTS
1. California Cities Survey Results Regarding Reactions to Zoom Bombing
2. Culver City Remote and In-Person Speakers Over Six Month Period
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
That the City Council:
1. Review the Current Online Meeting Participation Practice and Determine Whether or Not to Continue Allowing Virtual Public Comments, or to make other changes to online meeting participation;
2. Direction to the City Manager as deemed appropriate.