Santa Barbara City Hall Pulls Plug on Virtual Public Comments, Sparks Controversy
City Reverted to In-Person Comments After Racist Calls During Council, but Some Question Decision
In response to three racially inflammatory Zoom calls broadcast during the public comment period at a Santa Barbara City Council meeting on October 31, City Hall banned all electronic public comment at council meetings, at least for the time being.
Not everyone is happy about it. Councilmember Oscar Gutierrez objected that there had been no public discussion of the policy change in advance, and that the decision will most affect people of color because, he said, they are the ones least able to take time off work to testify in person at council meetings. “The racists have won,” he said. “We did what they wanted us to do.”
Racist Zoom Callers
During the October 31 meeting, one of the commenters in question alluded to the fact he “didn’t like Brown people,” when Mayor Randy Rowse cut him off. Another speaker sought to broach the issue of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, when Rowse pulled the plug. Another sought to discuss the implications of the 1791 Naturalization Act — which entitled Whites of Good Character to become naturalized citizens after two years of residency — when the mayor pulled her plug. In each instance, Rowse notified the speakers they could speak only about the agendized matter before the councilmembers at the time. When they kept speaking, he cut them off.
According to city officials, such electronic commentary is becoming “a thing” they hear rumblings about from their colleagues in other cities. In this instance, Rowse could legally pull the plug on them because they were not addressing the agenda item before the council. Had the calls come during the time allotted for public comment, however, Rowse would have been on shakier constitutional grounds, and City Hall could have found itself behind the legal eight-ball in a fight over free speech. By shutting down electronic calls during council meetings, city officials hope to reduce the ease and opportunity for people to make racist comments. Now, they would have to show up in person to make those remarks during time set aside for general public comment.
Public Comment Conflict
On Tuesday, November 7, the situation took on another layer when a normally mundane City Council approval of an item that had already been decided in a 5-2 vote weeks before — the adoption of a citywide ordinance for parklets in the public right of way — turned into a mess of arguments over councilmembers changing their votes and the council flipping its previous decision without allowing any members of the public to comment.
To be more specific, had members of the public been in City Council chambers, they would have been able to speak; since the city had just revoked the ability to call in remotely and give public comment, however, there was nobody around to voice their support or opposition.
Councilmember Kristen Sneddon, who asked that the item be pulled from the consent calendar for full council discussion over concerns she had over protective k-rails, pointed this out when the council was ready to proceed to a vote without public comment.
“I believe there were a number of people who had planned to comment that probably assumed that they could call in,” Sneddon said.
Left on the Outside
In fact, several Santa Barbara residents had hoped to call during Tuesday’s meeting to chime in. Among them were at least five representatives from Strong Towns Santa Barbara, which in the past year has mobilized young professionals to become more involved in the public process with issues like housing, bicycle infrastructure, and creating livable and walkable cities.
In the past year, the group has taken efforts to “help counterbalance” the usual City Council commenters — which Strong Towns Santa Barbara founder Sully Israel noticed were typically older residents that had the free time to attend in person — with constructive comments from people who “were not being represented to elected officials, but who make up a significant portion of the local population.” In the months since, the group has helped high school and college students, young parents, and even children give public comments in person, virtually, and via written letters.
“We’re trying to provide that missing voice and represent those with shared values who can’t make these meetings,” Strong Towns advocate Tristen Miller told the Independent. “Before joining Strong Towns Santa Barbara, most of us had never given public comment in our lives, but we’ve now had people comment at council meetings, committee meetings, Planning Commission meetings, Board of Supervisors meetings, and the State Street Advisory Committee.”
But on Tuesday, Miller said, the group members were “disheartened” to find out — right before they would have given a comment — that they could no longer call in remotely.
“Participating in the public process is difficult, and can even be scary for some,” Miller said. “If the city insists on having City Council meetings at 2 p.m. — a time when most working people, parents, and students are unavailable — the least they can do is provide the opportunity for virtual public comment. Banning this due to a few offensive comments is a completely inequitable decision.”
Unintended Consequences
Miller and Israel said that they didn’t believe that the city intended to leave people out of the conversation, and that they understood the decision was in response to racist comments made by virtual callers, but they worried that limiting comments to in-person or written comments would be snuffing out the voices that the city claims to prioritize with its public outreach.
“We acknowledge how remarks like those are harmful, but there are other ways we can hold people accountable virtually,” Miller said. “The content of the comments was the issue, not the medium.”
The group also said it’s possible that city hall has become “frustrated with the recent increase in public participation,” especially when State Street is discussed.
“We have engaged record numbers of young people, parents, and working people through virtual public comment, voices that have been underrepresented and underserved in city government. While the City of Santa Barbara claims to prioritize public outreach, eliminating virtual public comment reneges on that promise.”
Most of all, the group said, the change would affect the city’s “ordinary people,” those low-income and working class residents who are in school, work, picking up their children, or have mobility issues and can’t physically attend council meetings on Tuesday afternoons.
It’s Not Over Yet
Back at the November 7 council meeting, Councilmember Gutierrez could not contain his frustration any longer. He said that, as one of only two Latino members of the City Council, he understood just how hurtful the racist comments were, but that taking away the ability to comment virtually was the wrong decision.
“I personally was more offended by what happened last week than anybody else, but I’m not going to deny people their right to speak openly about whatever it is they want to talk about,” Gutierrez said. “It’s about transparency, so the fact that some of you aren’t willing to postpone this item so that the public has an ability to voice their opinion is just shameful.”
Mayor Rowse and Councilmember Eric Friedman expressed their frustrations, not over the lack of public comment, but over the fact that the council was, once again, taking an issue that was a done deal, switching their votes, and taking it back up for full council discussion.
“That’s shameful to me that you can’t have a disagreement with someone,” Friedman said. “We already had a hearing when everybody was here.”
With Councilmember Mike Jordan absent, and after a split 3-3 vote over the parklet ordinance, Councilmember Meagan Harmon proposed a compromise. She defended the council’s right to rethink its decision, saying that “everyone has a right, until we take the final vote, to change their mind.”
The parklet discussion had a “huge amount of public comment” during its previous public hearing, she said, and since no members of the public were able to speak on Tuesday, she recommended it be brought back up on December 5 for a full public hearing.
“I’m very disappointed to be here and to be doing that, but I don’t see another path forward,” Harmon said.
Eventually, the council decided in a 3-2-1 vote, with Rowse and Friedman voting in opposition and Councilmember Alejandra Gutierrez abstaining, to bring the item back up to the full council on December 5 and approve the ordinance before the city’s temporary parklet program is set to expire on December 31.
You must be logged in to post a comment.