Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cotati residents challenge council practices during public comment over pledge and land acknowledgement
Summary
Residents at a Cotati City Council meeting disputed whether reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and a land acknowledgement during meetings triggers the Brown Act’s public-notice rules, prompting a legal clarification from the city attorney and extended public comment.
A group of residents used the public comment period of the Cotati City Council meeting to urge changes to how the council handles ceremonial remarks, arguing reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and a land acknowledgement should trigger Brown Act protections.
The issue drew sustained remarks from former councilman George Barich, who said the council’s wording that “we love to hear from you” is misleading and that council announcements and ceremonial items are effectively actions that should allow public input. “The Brown Act … as soon as you start speaking about the Pledge of Allegiance, or a land acknowledgement … it triggers the Brown Act,” Barich said during public comment.
Why it matters: Speakers said the current practice discourages public participation and can be inconsistent with state open‑meeting law. City staff and council members debated whether the phrasing on the agenda and the placement of ceremonies are clear to the public.
Council members and other residents raised similar concerns during citizen business; one commenter said staff language describing public records requests as a “nuisance” was unacceptable and urged greater transparency.
City Attorney: The council asked the city attorney whether reciting the pledge or a land acknowledgement constitutes “taking action” that would trigger the Brown Act. The city attorney replied, “No, mister mayor. That is not my legal opinion. I don’t think either those are act taking action or considering taking action,” providing a legal counterpoint to commenters who said such items amount to deliberation.
How council handled it: After the legal clarification, the council proceeded with the land acknowledgement and the Pledge of Allegiance. Several residents continued to press for revisions to council rules and agenda language that they said blur the line between announcements and agenda items.
What residents asked for: Commenters requested that staff revise agenda language so it is not misleading and that the council affirm it will permit public comment when items are discussed. One frequent commenter asked for a future workshop to resolve the disagreement over agenda labeling and the scope of announcements.
Where this came up in the meeting: The topic arose during public comment and later during announcements when the land acknowledgement and Pledge were recited. The council recorded the legal response on the record and continued the meeting agenda.
Ending note: The dispute remains primarily procedural and centered on agenda language and expectations for public participation; the city attorney’s stated legal view was that the ceremonial recitations are not, in themselves, actions that trigger the Brown Act’s requirement to notice an item as an action item.
