San Diego City Council adopts resolution pledging not to block public testimony on proclamations

The San Diego City Council on July 30, 2024, voted to adopt a resolution stating the council will not prevent public testimony during the presentation of proclamations, a measure the City Attorney's Office described as a narrowly tailored "unconditional commitment." The motion passed 7-0 with two members absent after an extended public-comment period.

Assistant City Attorney Leslie Fitzgerald told the council the resolution responds to allegations that public testimony was not allowed at a June 4, 2024, presentation of a proclamation honoring former San Diego police chief David Nyslide. Fitzgerald said the proposed resolution "states the council's unconditional commitment that it will cease, desist from and not repeat any act preventing public testimony during the presentation of proclamations appearing on the council's agenda" and that adoption "is not an admission of liability" but can reduce the city's exposure to paying attorney fees and costs under California Government Code section 54960.2.

Public commenters urged stronger, enforceable steps. Lori Saldana said the special meeting's timing and notice were "so cynical," accused the council of repeatedly violating the Brown Act and directing staff to block public comment, and called the resolution "hollow and meaningless without some actual verification that you want us to be heard." Others asked the council to retain virtual testimony options so people who cannot attend in person for accessibility or cost reasons can take part.

Several speakers cited prior court-related commitments and litigation. Martha Sullivan said the city made "an unconditional commitment to a court on 12/05/2018" to allow public comment on proclamation items; Francis Madawala, speaking for Activist San Diego, asserted the city has paid about $15,000,000 for related failures (Madawala's dollar figure was presented as a claim by the speaker and not verified in the meeting). Multiple commenters asked the council to "redo" the June 4 proclamation presentation so the public could be heard and to adopt concrete, verifiable procedures.

During public comment John Stump called for an apology and for the council to repeat the affected proclamation with public testimony; Blair Beekman asked the council to explain why the presentation had been handled without comment and to offer clearer accountability and transparency. Danny Avedia, a resident of District 3, said the resolution would be "empty and meaningless" unless the council committed to tangible measures such as retaining virtual public comment and re-doing the item that prompted the complaint.

After public comment, the presiding officer moved to approve the recommended action; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Campillo. The clerk initiated the electronic voting system and announced: "That passes, with 7 votes and 2 absent." The council then adjourned to its next regularly scheduled meeting on Sept. 9, 2024, at 10 a.m.

The City Attorney's Office framed the resolution as a protective, non-admission statement intended to reduce litigation exposure while declaring the council's commitment to allow public testimony on proclamations. Members of the public said the measure should be accompanied by enforceable procedures, restorations of remote testimony, or re-doing the specific proclamation presentation in question; the transcript records those calls for remedies but not any follow-up direction or schedule for additional action.