A City Council meeting is not a private corporate board meeting. It is a public meeting where public business is conducted.

The Brown Act could not be clearer: “All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend.” California law also says the people do not surrender their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them, and public servants do not get to decide what the people are allowed to know.

The California Constitution says the people have the right of access to information concerning “the conduct of the people’s business,” and that meetings of public bodies shall be open to public scrutiny.

Riverside’s own Charter confirms that all powers of the City are vested in the City Council, and Riverside’s own public materials state that citizens may address the Council on matters concerning the City’s business.

So yes, the Council conducts business. But it is the people’s business — funded by taxpayers, governed by public law, and subject to public scrutiny.

Any councilmember who tries to dismiss public participation by saying “this is a business meeting, not a public meeting” is revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of representative government. The dais does not own City Hall. The people do.

Falcone is correct that the Brown Act does not require councilmembers to sit in total silence during public comment. Councilmembers may ask a clarifying question, refer a matter to staff, briefly respond in limited circumstances, or request that an item be placed on a future agenda. But that limited authority is not a license to ambush, argue with, lecture, belittle, or attack residents after they speak. Too often, this Council waits until public comment is finished and then uses the dais to attack the speaker, reframe the issue, or avoid real scrutiny without allowing a fair response. That is not transparency. That is not leadership. It shows a fear of open debate and, too often, a lack of preparation or understanding of the topic being discussed. Just as troubling, I have not seen other councilmembers or the Mayor call a point of order when this happens, even when the conduct appears to violate the spirit of the Brown Act and the public trust. Silence from the rest of the dais only normalizes the abuse of public comment and sends the message that residents may speak, but only at the risk of being publicly targeted by the very officials who are supposed to serve them.

https://www.raincrossgazette.com/six-months-in-the-public-comment-debate-is-still-about-whether-speaking-changes-anything/?fbclid=IwdGRleAR4uLRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA8xNzM4NDc2NDI2NzAzNzAAAR7jGKf4jFh7YPxVxAM7O3JUsxXX97YXvcr5qwMJJ7Sp7_vVy43DGEWPQfyWUg_aem_aHqExUZ8hHYwNfJd0GqekQ