Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
San Diego city attorney weighs in on limiting public comment at council meetings
Councilmember Sherman hopes to kill television feed.
Sherman questioned the need for city staff and councilmembers to sit around and listen to the same "ten individuals."
San Diego city councilmember Scott Sherman's proposal to reduce the time residents are allowed to speak at council meetings and cut the television feed during non-agenda public comment has hit a road block.
Chief deputy city attorney Dugard: "The exercise of discretion must not be arbitrary or capricious."
In an April 24 memo from the city attorney's office, chief deputy city attorney Prescilla Dugard said Sherman's proposal would not only deviate from city council procedure but could result in Brown Act violations, thus opening the door for potential lawsuits.
Sherman first proposed the rule changes in a January 2017 memo, http://sdcitybeat.com/news-and-opinion/spin-cycle/giving-the-finger-to-public-comment/ In his proposal Sherman questioned the need for city staff and councilmembers to sit around and listen to the same "ten individuals speaking on the same topic each meeting."
Continues Sherman's memo, "This usage of non-agenda public comment is a subversion of the intent of the legislation. I would request a review of requirements for non-agenda public comment, including but not limited to the ability to only provide audio of the comments.”
The second part to Sherman's proposal included cutting off the television feed during non-agenda public comment. Doing so, surmised Sherman, could potentially save city staff and other citizens from having to sit through meaningless comments from citizens whose only aspiration was to make it on television.
Chief deputy city attorney Dugard, however, said city officials should use "discretion" when deciding whether to limit public comment, regardless of whether the item is on the agenda or for non-agenda comments.
"We concluded that Council has wide discretion in limiting public testimony, but that the exercise of discretion must not be arbitrary or capricious," reads Dugard's memo.
Dugar added that councilmembers could potentially change the policy to limit public comment at council meetings if the public had already had a chance to comment during a committee hearing, assuming that the proposed legislation did not undergo any significant changes.
As for Sherman's call to cut the television feed, Dugar warned that there must be a "reasonable basis for doing so. Any proposed limitation on the city’s audio broadcast of non-agenda public comment would need further legal review of constitutional issues, including potential First Amendment and Equal Protection clause issues."
As reported by the Reader, a local non-profit sued the city for a 13-year-old policy of only allowing non-agenda public comment on only one of two weekly council meetings. The city opted to change the policy instead of fighting the policy in court. In January 2017 the city paid $70,000 in legal fees to dismiss the case.
It is unclear whether councilmember Sherman or his colleagues will pursue the proposed changes. Sherman's office declined to comment for this article.
Here's something you might be interested in.
San Diego city attorney weighs in on limiting public comment at council meetings
Councilmember Sherman hopes to kill television feed.
San Diego city attorney weighs in on limiting public comment at council meetings
Councilmember Sherman hopes to kill television feed.
Sherman questioned the need for city staff and councilmembers to sit around and listen to the same "ten individuals."
San Diego city councilmember Scott Sherman's proposal to reduce the time residents are allowed to speak at council meetings and cut the television feed during non-agenda public comment has hit a road block.
Chief deputy city attorney Dugard: "The exercise of discretion must not be arbitrary or capricious."
In an April 24 memo from the city attorney's office, chief deputy city attorney Prescilla Dugard said Sherman's proposal would not only deviate from city council procedure but could result in Brown Act violations, thus opening the door for potential lawsuits.
Sherman first proposed the rule changes in a January 2017 memo, http://sdcitybeat.com/news-and-opinion/spin-cycle/giving-the-finger-to-public-comment/ In his proposal Sherman questioned the need for city staff and councilmembers to sit around and listen to the same "ten individuals speaking on the same topic each meeting."
Continues Sherman's memo, "This usage of non-agenda public comment is a subversion of the intent of the legislation. I would request a review of requirements for non-agenda public comment, including but not limited to the ability to only provide audio of the comments.”
The second part to Sherman's proposal included cutting off the television feed during non-agenda public comment. Doing so, surmised Sherman, could potentially save city staff and other citizens from having to sit through meaningless comments from citizens whose only aspiration was to make it on television.
Chief deputy city attorney Dugard, however, said city officials should use "discretion" when deciding whether to limit public comment, regardless of whether the item is on the agenda or for non-agenda comments.
"We concluded that Council has wide discretion in limiting public testimony, but that the exercise of discretion must not be arbitrary or capricious," reads Dugard's memo.
Dugar added that councilmembers could potentially change the policy to limit public comment at council meetings if the public had already had a chance to comment during a committee hearing, assuming that the proposed legislation did not undergo any significant changes.
As for Sherman's call to cut the television feed, Dugar warned that there must be a "reasonable basis for doing so. Any proposed limitation on the city’s audio broadcast of non-agenda public comment would need further legal review of constitutional issues, including potential First Amendment and Equal Protection clause issues."
As reported by the Reader, a local non-profit sued the city for a 13-year-old policy of only allowing non-agenda public comment on only one of two weekly council meetings. The city opted to change the policy instead of fighting the policy in court. In January 2017 the city paid $70,000 in legal fees to dismiss the case.
It is unclear whether councilmember Sherman or his colleagues will pursue the proposed changes. Sherman's office declined to comment for this article.
Comments