Long Beach City Council Ignores Hundreds of Residents - Public Comment Limited
The Long Beach City Council voted 6-3 Tuesday to consolidate public comment near the beginning of its meetings, despite objections from residents who said the new format would weaken their ability to address issues as council members consider them.
Councilmembers Cindy Allen, Kristina Duggan and Megan Kerr voted against the ordinance.
The changes establish a 90-minute period for comments on agenda and nonagenda matters after ceremonies, presentations and the city clerk’s report on written comments. The mayor may extend the period in 30-minute increments if speakers remain, according to information provided during the meeting.
Supporters said an earlier comment period would improve access for people with disabilities, families and others unable to remain at meetings late into the evening. Opponents argued that residents should be able to speak when the council takes up the specific issues they came to address.
Ann Cantrell, a longtime Long Beach resident, urged the council to reject the proposal. She said she had attended council meetings for at least 35 years and had watched opportunities for public participation diminish.
“And now you want to cut us down to maybe 60 seconds and have us discuss every agenda item before it even comes before you,” she said.
The council moved the proposal, listed as Item 29, ahead of other business after the consent calendar because many attendees were there to discuss it. Critics pointed to that decision as evidence that officials could accommodate residents by moving heavily attended items earlier rather than consolidating public comment.
Mayor Rex Richardson raised concerns that such an approach could lead to requests to rearrange the agenda and threaten the democratic process. Opponents said the council could instead exercise discretion when an issue draws a large turnout.
Councilmember Mary Zendejas supported the changes, citing challenges faced by people with disabilities who must arrange transportation in advance or cannot stay through lengthy meetings. Several people with mobility disabilities raised their canes or spoke up to indicate that they also understood those transportation barriers.
The proposal was presented in connection with Senate Bill 707, described during the meeting as requiring expanded remote participation and language access accommodations. Critics argued that the state requirements did not justify consolidating comments on agenda items into a single period.
Comments