City Council restores prior public-comment process, approves sign-up and question rules

The City Council voted to restore its previous public-comment procedures and to clarify how members of the public may ask questions during meetings, approving three related items after extended discussion.

The measures reinstate the long-standing practice of allowing unscheduled public comment on agenda items, require sign-up for the 5:30 p.m. comment block with a 4:00 p.m. cutoff, and adopt a rule that members of the public may pose questions at meetings but that councilmembers generally will not answer them on the spot because of Open Meetings Act restrictions.

Councilmember Rachel Caballero, District 1, told the council that requiring sign-ups for agenda items had added “too much” bureaucracy and urged a return to the prior system. “We’ve never had to sign up to speak on the agenda items. We should not have to sign up to speak per the agenda item,” Caballero said during public comment.

The changes grew out of confusion at a recent meeting when a large number of people attended and sign-up procedures differed from prior practice. Council members and staff discussed multiple options, including a noon and 5:30 p.m. split for commenters and a single 5:30 p.m. block for public comment. One speaker described a hypothetical split—“let’s say we have 30 people … 15 can speak at noon. 15 cannot speak until 05:30”—to illustrate fairness concerns about multiple comment windows.

Councilmembers agreed to revert to a process that removes the new requirement to sign up for each agenda item; instead, the council retained a formal 5:30 p.m. public-comment block for which sign-up must be submitted by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting day. The council voted on the items sequentially; each motion was approved and the mayor declared the motions carried.

The council also debated whether members of the public should be allowed to ask questions during public comment and whether the council may respond. Miles, a staff member who spoke about the Open Meetings Act, said the statute does not categorically prohibit answering questions at a public meeting and that “the Open Meetings Act does not say you cannot respond to questions.” He cautioned, however, that responses should avoid un-noticed deliberation and that factual statements are generally permitted.

Some council members and residents said the rules should be clear and administrable. One councilmember noted that the volume of speakers at a recent meeting—“50 people that come in because they were here, that this was an anomaly to a degree”—created confusion and supported a standardized sign-up cutoff. A speaker also mentioned internal staffing concerns, saying city professionals who prepare agenda items should be trusted to draft proposals before council direction; that speaker noted a staff salary figure during the debate, saying “1 in particular, $409,000 a year.”

Staff said the council had received written material in advance and that a written update would be circulated by email; the council agreed to continue circulating materials in writing and to provide another update the following Friday.

The council’s actions were procedural changes to how public comment and audience questions are handled; they do not create new substantive policy beyond the meeting rules. The council approved the motions as described and adjourned the meeting.