Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council introduces rule to bar certain slurs in public comment; vote deferred after extended testimony
Summary
A proposed change to council rules that would bar two specific slurs during public comment drew more than an hour of testimony from students, educators, neighborhood councils and other community members. Council took no final action under Rule 77 and will consider the proposal at a later date.
Council members introduced a proposed amendment to council rules that would prohibit the use of certain racial and gender-based slurs during the public-comment portion of meetings. The measure drew sustained public testimony from students, educators and neighborhood councils before the council, under Rule 77, declined to take final action and laid the matter over for at least one week.
Council President Harris Dawson said the proposal will not be adopted today: "Council will take no action on item 16 today. That is only to introduce the rule and that is pursuant to council rule 77." The rule means the item was introduced but must be held over for at least one week before a vote.
Why this matters: Supporters said the rule change is intended to protect civic spaces and make it safe for students and marginalized community members to observe and participate in council meetings. Opponents — including the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council — argued the proposal risks First Amendment challenges and could expose the city to legal liability.
Speakers in favor included students and education staff. Diana Munguia of the Redeemer Community Partnership Youth said: "When slurs like the n word or the c word are used in public meetings, it doesn't just create an uncomfortable environment. It sends a message that we don't belong here." Emily Salazar, a 16-year-old student, told the council: "Passing these rule changes will make it clear that hate speech has no place here and that civic spaces are meant to be inclusive and welcoming to everyone."
The Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council submitted a community impact statement opposing the proposal and its representative said the council "strongly opposes" the rule because it "violates the First Amendment ... and opens the city to significant legal liability." That body urged the councilmember who seconded the motion to withdraw the second.
Council members signaled a range of views during the meeting. Some members urged the council to raise standards for public discourse and make City Hall more welcoming for youth and marginalized communities; others, including speakers representing neighborhood-government groups, warned of legal exposure and urged caution.
What’s next: Under council rules the measure was only introduced and must be brought back later for consideration. Council members said they expect additional briefing and the opportunity for further debate before any final vote.
Ending: For now the council left the rules motion pending, after extensive testimony from students, educators and neighborhood groups. The item will return to the council for a future vote after the required layover period under council rule 77.
