The cities of Concord and San Ramon are joining Walnut Creek, Sonoma County, Redwood City and Fremont is halting remote public comment at public meetings, mostly due to antisemitic callers.
Both cities have council meetings Tuesday night, at which people who want to make comments to the council must do so in person.
Concord will only allow Zoom and phone calls for city officials under “Just cause or emergency circumstances” who can’t be present at meetings, according to the meeting agenda.
California’s Brown Act, which governs the rules of public meetings in the state, requires municipalities to allow people to comment in person.
The pandemic forced cities to expand the rules, something many municipalities kept in place meetings were reopened for in-person participation.
“It is not just the antisemitic (callers) but they are also expanding into LGBT and white supremacy,” Concord City Councilmember Edi Birsan said on Sunday. “It is a matter of appropriateness to the arena of a city council and the disruption of it. The name of our city is Concord, not Discord.”
Walnut Creek announced Tuesday it would stop taking remarks remotely via phone and Zoom on Tuesday after months of harassment by antisemitic callers, frequently targeting City Councilmember Kevin Wilk, who is Jewish.
Wilk said it’s a strategy of far-right, white nationalist groups like White Lives Matters California, who use locally broadcast public forums to broadcast their messages. Wilk has often been mentioned by name by callers, who Wilk said typically use pseudonyms like “Eddie from Walnut Creek” and don’t show their faces over Zoom.
“It’s sad really,” Wilk said last week. “A valuable tool of communicating with local government has been forced to be taken away due to hate speech hijacking it.”
The strategy has been used in other municipalities, including San Jose, Richmond, El Cerrito, San Francisco, and Berkeley.
Concord and Walnut Creek have been among Bay Area communities targeted with racist flyers since Sept. 2022.
.
I had wondered by remote public testimony continued to be allowed since the Covid hysteria subsided. The accommodation to make public comment by telephone was rife with the potential to be abused. The telephone numbers of those who made disparaging remarks should be traced, named, publicly “outed”, and then visited by law enforcement.
.
Are local elected officials not able to consider the dark side of the human factor? It’s a foreseeable given that there will be a few loons out there who will abuse the system. It’s human nature.
.
@Exit 12A
So, you want to track ’em down and lock ’em up for what you call disparaging remarks? WOW!
Ah, just the type of liberal that wants folks locked up for words, but lets all the violent criminals run free. Sounds right.
No where did I say to lock them up. Id like them scolded by law enforcement for their uncivil behavior.
So you want law enforcement to “scold” people who have not broken the law? No thanks. I’d prefer my tax dollars go toward LAW ENFORCEMENT by those charged with that duty. Tell me how “scolding” by law enforcement wouldn’t be tantamount to government sponsored chilling of free speech? You’re usually pretty reasonable here, but you’ve lost the plot on this one.
“and then visited by law enforcement.”
For what purpose?
Refer to response above.
EXIT 12A,
.
We don’t have “hate speech laws” in the United States. The language used may be deemed “disruptive” and therefore silenced at council meetings, but this doesn’t necessarily make these words illegal. Telephone numbers could be blocked or spoofed. In California, under the Brown Act, individuals have a right to anonymous speech at “limited public forums,” such as city council meetings. Sending peace officers out to harass members of the public over speech you may dislike or that councilmembers find disruptive is nothing but a waste of public resources and would likely lead to lawsuits that localities would lose at further financial cost to the public.
As a former public official, law enforcement detectives contacted persons who made veiled threats about my personal safety. Their comments weren’t illegal per se but did border on actionable statements.
EXIT 12A,
.
You stated “The telephone numbers of those who made disparaging remarks should be traced, named, publicly “outed”, and then visited by law enforcement,” but the problem is that “disparaging remarks” are a far cry from being “threatening remarks.” This is why I stated “but this doesn’t necessarily make these words illegal,” to allow for investigation in the case of threats of bodily harm. Otherwise, I would’ve stated “but these words aren’t illegal.” What exactly was threatening about the “disparaging remarks” made at Walnut Creek City Council meetings?
.
So, you had police detectives make contact with members of the public over subjectivity perceived “veiled threats” versus actual threats. It’s a great and wonderful thing that those individual members of the public had no obligation to listen or speak to your police detectives in those situations.
So you’re advocating “thought police”?
No.
.
Ask youself if the callers would said the same things in an in-person forum.
There you go. “I dare you to say that to my face! I’ll meet you by the bike racks after school!”
“White supremacy” is a perfectly acceptable term but “Jewish supremacy” is not? Explain.
Ignorance in government. Freedom of speech is about protecting unpopular speech
MARTINEZMIKE,
.
Unfortunately, city council meetings aren’t “free speech forums,” they’re “limited public forums,” where the council can silence speech they find “disrupive.”
If only Congress had the balls to find the abhorrent support of Hamas’ actions by brain dead Tlaib and Omar “disruptive” and silence their stupid pie holes.
You can still attend in person and make your comments.
I think if you have something to say you can show up and do it in person. No big deal really.
Time for council to step into modern technological society and allow remote public comment. Public comment should be as broadened as possible and Concord has not any issues with bad actors during remote public comment. State government should have something similar as it is not always convenient for people who don’t live near Sacramento (most of the population of the state) to participate. And doesn’t remote participation fit into Concord’s theory that people shouldn’t be using their cars?
They’re scared of the truth. That’s why we never stop speaking truth.
Suppression of views not aligning with the honorable city council members.
They only want to hear praise and accolations.
Heaven forbid they ever hear the truth or a discouraging word.
People show up all the time with views not held by the council. Doubt if it changes their minds though.
I don’t get it..
Are they making anti Jewish comments or are they commenting about the member named,and he just happens to be jewish so he’s an instant victim?
They don’t explain this ever,and this story has been told several times.
They targeted WILK personally and made a slew of anti-semitic comments and threats. That same week they took over the Curtola overpass on 24 and hung a bunch of white pride banners. Bunchcha dipshirts – its good to block them.
They must be really frightened. Probably because they purposefully make decisions contrary to what the public who elected them want.
I guess I’d have to think about how much time I expected public servants to work vs.how much time trying to manage the broken, stunted and loud. I mean if I cared, those would be my choices.