1:54:27
Monterey City Council Special Meeting // October 11, 2023
City of Monterey, California
Overview
This special Monterey City Council meeting on October 11, 2023, focused on adopting new governance policies. Key discussions included a reconsideration policy for council votes, guidelines for council member interactions with labor unions during negotiations, procedures for ex parte communications in quasi-judicial proceedings, and managing public comment, particularly concerning the use of Zoom. The council deliberated on balancing public access with maintaining meeting order and preventing disruptions, ultimately voting on several policy adjustments.
How was this?
Save this permanently with flashcards, quizzes, and AI chat
Chapters
- The meeting began with roll call, announcements, and instructions for public participation via Zoom or phone.
- Masks were recommended for in-person attendance, and electronic devices were to be muted.
- Procedures for making public comments, including virtual and phone-in options, were detailed.
- Public commenters were reminded of time limits and the use of a countdown timer.
Establishing clear procedures ensures that all participants, both in-person and remote, understand how to engage with the council and that meetings are conducted efficiently and respectfully.
Dialing star nine to virtually raise a hand when calling in by phone to indicate a desire to speak during public comment.
- The council reviewed its policy on reconsidering previously made decisions.
- The current policy allows a council member who voted with the majority to request reconsideration at the same or next meeting.
- An alternative option discussed was adopting Robert's Rules of Order, requiring a majority vote for reconsideration at the same meeting.
- The council ultimately decided not to change the existing reconsideration policy.
This policy dictates how the council can revisit and potentially alter its own decisions, impacting the finality and flexibility of council actions.
A council member who voted in favor of a motion can request that the council reconsider that same motion at a later point in the meeting or the next scheduled meeting.
- The council discussed a policy for interactions with labor unions during pending negotiations.
- Legal counsel advised against direct communication with represented employees without their designated union representative to avoid undermining the union's authority.
- Options included not speaking with unions during negotiations, listening without responding, or disclosing all discussions.
- The council passed a motion requiring council members to avoid private conversations on labor contracts during negotiations and to disclose any related discussions to the council.
This policy aims to prevent interference with the collective bargaining process and maintain the integrity of negotiations by establishing clear communication protocols.
A council member should not discuss potential contract terms directly with a union representative if formal negotiations are currently underway, and if such a discussion occurs, it must be disclosed to the rest of the council.
- The council addressed policies regarding communications with parties involved in quasi-judicial hearings (e.g., permit appeals).
- The existing practice complies with the law by requiring disclosure of any ex parte communications at the start of the hearing.
- This disclosure ensures all council members and the public have access to the same information for fair decision-making.
- The council decided to maintain its current practice of disclosing ex parte contacts and not adopt additional rigid restrictions.
This policy ensures procedural due process by preventing council members from making decisions based on information not presented or available to all parties during a public hearing.
If a council member speaks with an applicant about a use permit appeal outside of a formal hearing, they must disclose that conversation to the rest of the council and the public before the hearing begins.
- The council debated whether to continue offering public comment via Zoom following an incident of hate speech.
- Arguments for continuing Zoom included increased accessibility for those with childcare, work, or health concerns.
- Arguments against continuing Zoom highlighted the ease with which hate speech and disruptions can occur anonymously online.
- The council considered options like pausing Zoom comments, limiting speaker time, or implementing stricter monitoring.
This discussion is crucial for balancing the benefits of remote participation in fostering civic engagement with the need to maintain a respectful and orderly meeting environment.
Following an incident where over 13 callers spewed hate speech, racial epithets, and attacks on specific groups during a Zoom public comment session, the council had to decide whether to continue offering this remote participation option.
- The council discussed the timing of public comment for items not on the agenda.
- Current practice allows comments in both the afternoon and evening sessions.
- An option to streamline the agenda was to hold comments on non-agenda items only during the evening session.
- The council considered how timing affects public access, particularly for those who cannot attend during work hours.
The scheduling of public comment periods directly influences public access and the council's ability to efficiently manage its agenda and conduct business.
Moving public comment for non-agenda items solely to the evening session could allow the council to complete afternoon business, such as consent items and closed sessions, more quickly.
Key takeaways
- Clear governance policies are essential for effective and fair council operations.
- Balancing public accessibility with meeting order is a recurring challenge, especially with remote participation tools.
- Direct communication with labor unions during negotiations can undermine the formal bargaining process and requires careful policy.
- Ensuring procedural due process in quasi-judicial hearings necessitates transparency and disclosure of all communications.
- Remote participation options like Zoom significantly increase public engagement but also introduce challenges in managing disruptive behavior.
- The timing of public comment periods can impact who is able to participate in local government discussions.
- Council decisions on policy aim to uphold legal requirements while reflecting the council's values regarding transparency and public access.
Key terms
Roll CallPublic CommentZoomReconsideration PolicyRobert's Rules of OrderLabor NegotiationsExclusive Negotiating AuthorityEx Parte CommunicationsQuasi-Judicial ProceedingsProcedural Due ProcessHate SpeechFreedom of ExpressionZoom BombingBagley Act
Test your understanding
- What are the primary methods for the public to participate in Monterey City Council meetings, and what are the key rules for each?
- Why is it important for council members to have a policy regarding interactions with labor unions during negotiations?
- How does the council's policy on ex parte communications aim to ensure fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings?
- What are the main arguments for and against continuing to offer public comment via Zoom, especially in light of disruptive incidents?
- How might changing the timing of public comment for non-agenda items affect public participation and the council's meeting efficiency?