A proposal to eliminate public comments by phone and Zoom during San Diego City Council meetings is prompting a sharp backlash from people who say allowing only in-person comment would severely limit who can participate.
Critics say the proposal from council President Sean Elo-Rivera is undemocratic, discriminatory and designed to silence the voices of those who can’t attend meetings, whether because of health, disability or parenting duties.
“If you do not accept all forms of insight on matters that affect your communities, then please step down and make room for others that want to better our communities and are wise enough to listen to feedback,” Sage Soledad told Elo-Rivera by email.
Elo-Rivera said allowing both in-person and virtual comment is making council and committee meetings significantly longer, and making it harder for the council to get its work done on schedule.
“The proposed change is in the spirit of balancing our responsibilities as a council so San Diegans can be confident business is done with the pace and efficiency they deserve,” Elo-Rivera said in a statement.
“San Diegans deserve an accessible and transparent government,” he said. “They also deserve a government that can get essential work done.”
Elo-Rivera stressed that many other cities and public agencies have eliminated virtual public comments, which many began allowing four years ago, early in the pandemic, because it wasn’t safe to attend meetings in person.
Among local cities, three of the county’s largest have eliminated virtual comment — Chula Vista, Oceanside and Carlsbad.
Critics note, however, that most other local cities schedule their meetings at night, when fewer people are working and more are available. San Diego’s meetings take place during the day, with many starting at 9 and 10 a.m.
San Diego allowed only virtual public comments from fall 2020 through April 2022, when the city resumed allowing in-person attendance and testimony at meetings.
Elo-Rivera said it’s time to shift back to in-person only.
“We are proposing to provide City Council with flexibility by removing an unnecessarily rigid requirement to hear virtual comment on every item at every council and committee meeting,” he said.
He said city officials are exploring some new options that could expand opportunities for comment, but he provided no details.
“I am working with the city clerk and have invited community advocates to partner with us to expand the number of options our community members have to share their voice with the City Council,” he said.
The proposal prompted 226 pages of emails to Elo-Rivera — all of them critical.
“Public meetings are often during the hours of the day that most community members cannot participate,” said Candice Moreno. “As a result, only white retirees, employees who get paid to go to public meetings and lobbyists can participate in policymaking.”
Vianney Ruvalcaba said the proposal would worsen the council’s relationship with ordinary residents.
“This is a deeply undemocratic move that undermines public participation,” he said. “If the council hopes to empower communities and build a good relationship with the public, curtailing our methods for participation is not a solution.”
The only person who expressed support for eliminating virtual comments included some demands.
“The elimination would have to be accompanied by the City Council moving all public meetings to the evening and requiring agenda items to be docketed at least two weeks in advance to allow the public enough time to process the issue and, importantly, plan on attending,” said Eva Yakutis.
Sarah Parker said it was ironic that she couldn’t attend the Wednesday hearing scheduled for Elo-Rivera’s proposal.
“As a working mom of school-age kids who just tested positive for Covid, this issue impacts me acutely right now and will continue to impact my ability to participate in local government,” she said.
Elo-Rivera postponed Wednesday’s hearing on the proposal at the council’s Rules Committee to September, contending that two items the committee handled before it had taken too long.
He said the obviously significant public interest in the fate of virtual comments made it crucial to discuss the item in September, when he expects the Rules Committee to have adequate time.
Originally Published: