Moreno Valley council studies tighter decorum enforcement after public critiques and staff presentation

Moreno Valley — The City Council held a study session on May 12 devoted to "promoting civility, decorum, and effective public participation," during which the city clerk and city attorney reviewed the roles and legal limits of meeting rules, public commenters urged both stronger enforcement and protection for robust speech, and council members discussed next steps including trainings and clearer enforcement guidance.

City Clerk Patty Rodriguez opened by framing four objectives for meeting decorum: orderly proceedings, transparent records, equal opportunity for participation, and a professional, welcoming environment. Steven Kitine, the city attorney, then reviewed legal authorities and values schools of practice rely on, including materials from the Institute for Local Government and the League of California Cities. Kitine distinguished “civility” (a normative expectation of respectful behavior) from “decorum” (conduct-based rules that the city can enforce), and repeatedly cautioned that enforcement must respect constitutional protections and be grounded in case law.

Kitine said the city’s current rules require a warning before removing someone for conduct that actually disrupts a meeting. He outlined typical examples of regulated conduct: shouting that prevents a speaker from being heard; blocking access to the podium; repeated interruptions; and coordinated disruption. If a warning is ignored, the presiding officer may direct the bailiff to remove an individual or, in extreme cases, clear the room (media may remain). He emphasized that a removed person may be allowed to return once the disruption ends and warned that some municipal decorum rules adopted elsewhere have been struck down by courts.

During public comment, residents offered diverging views about enforcement and tone. Morgan Vay urged consistent application of warning-and-remove rules and said council members should model the civility they seek from the public. Christopher Baka accused a staff member he identified as “Mr. Mohan” of inserting items into agendas without authority and urged investigation and removal; those allegations were raised as citizen claims and not adjudicated at the meeting. Other speakers asked for clearer pre-meeting materials and glossaries for acronyms to improve participation, and several urged council members to examine their own conduct.

Council members asked for clarification on what constitutes an enforceable disruption and whether the city could use trainings or third-party facilitators to improve communication. Kitine noted that training resources exist (League of California Cities, Institute for Local Government) but cautioned that the Brown Act constrains some off-site or informal gatherings and that any proposed changes should be vetted for litigation risk. Council members indicated they may enforce existing conduct rules more strictly going forward while also exploring professional-development options.

The study session concluded with council members reiterating that tone-setting starts with elected officials, and the mayor adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m. No formal motions or votes were taken on decorum-policy changes during the session.

Ending: Council members asked staff and the city attorney to provide additional materials — including case-law examples of what courts regard as "actual disruption" and practical templates used by other cities — to inform any future policy proposals or trainings.