Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to shield speakers’ contact information; council advances privacy proposal
Summary
Multiple public commenters and several council members backed an amendment (Proposition A / item 44) to stop publishing personal contact details of public commenters, arguing disclosure deters participation and can endanger survivors and vulnerable residents. Council members expressed support and said the change will be considered formally.
Dozens of Houstonians urged the City Council on Nov. 6 to protect the private contact information of people who sign up to speak during public comment, arguing that the current practice of publishing phone numbers and addresses deters civic participation and creates safety risks.
Speakers who addressed the council during the public comment period described a range of concerns. Alexandra Okeechi urged the council to amend city code to prevent public disclosure, saying the requirement to submit phone numbers and mailing addresses amounts to doxxing and can intimidate students, survivors of domestic violence and other vulnerable residents. Rosanna Al Nashar, who said she is a survivor of domestic violence, told council members that publicly posting addresses and phone numbers can expose speakers to harassment or violence.
Pepe Woods, who identified himself as from Spring, Texas, said the change would not reduce governmental transparency but would balance safety with accountability and help broaden participation. Council members including Pollard, Ramirez and Castiglott (Castiglott/Castex Tatum in the transcript) orally praised the proposed amendment, saying the city should retain contact details for staff follow‑up while removing them from public postings to reduce safety risks.
Council members said the issue has been under discussion and that the proposed change would be scheduled for formal consideration; several members thanked residents for weighing in. A number of public commenters and council speakers noted logistical questions such as how unhoused residents would list addresses and how the city would maintain necessary staff contact information for follow‑up while keeping public records limited.
The discussion concluded with council members expressing support for the measure and indicating next steps: formal consideration and ordinance drafting consistent with city rules. No final ordinance vote took place during the Nov. 6 session; members said the item will proceed through committee and return for action at a later meeting.
