SR 03-27-2018 3J
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018
Agenda Item: 3.J
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Modification of City Council Rules of Order
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution modifying the
Rules of Order and Procedures for the Conduct of City Council meetings, to establish a
procedure for public speakers to submit electronic media files as part of their public
comment during City Council meetings. This new procedure will take affect beginning
with the April 10, 2018 meeting.
Executive Summary
Staff recommends that the City Council establish a deadline for public speakers to
submit electronic presentation materials to the City Clerk’s Office by 12 p.m. on the
business day preceding a Council meeting. The new rule would allow time to screen
files for viruses, allow staff and speakers sufficient time to set up presentation files, and
reduce meeting delays and disruptions.
Background
At the December 15, 2015 meeting, the City Council amended the Rules of Order and
Procedure for the Conduct of City Council meetings to: 1) elaborate on the description
for items heard under Item 2: Special Agenda Items; and 2) clarify public comment rules
on the City Manager’s Report and late requests to donate speaker time on Item 14:
Public Input. The current rules have been in effect for over two years with minimal
disruptions to meetings, but staff has identified that a procedure is needed to address
concerns regarding public speakers submitting and presenting electronic presentation
materials during meetings.
2 of 3
Discussion
Currently, there is no established procedure for speakers to submit media files such as
PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, images, and portable document formats
(PDFs) to be setup before and during their time for public comment. City Clerk staff has
administratively established a 6:30 p.m. cutoff time on the day of City Council meetings
to submit files, but staff continues to receive requests for assistance after this time and
throughout the meeting.
The concern with uploading speakers’ media files after the meeting has commenced is
the inability to screen files for computer viruses, and/or compatibility with the City’s
software. While the computer in the Chambers can screen files for viruses, its
connection to the network poses a security threat to City staffs’ operations, information,
software and hardware. Lastly, different versions of presentations, video, audio, and
image viewing software may prevent public speakers from accessing their files, and
does not allow sufficient time for the public speaker to convert their presentation
material into other formats before addressing the Council.
The number of public speakers using media files during public comment varies from one
meeting to another and can be disruptive to meetings and staffs’ other duties. For
example, the computer used to project these files is located at the front of the
chambers, next to the public podium, where City staff and speakers stand throughout
the meeting to address the Council on various items. It is also not possible for the City
Clerk to upload files for speakers while taking votes and performing other duties. She
may inadvertently interfere with content being displayed on the screen in the Chambers,
on CityTV and online at the time.
Therefore, staff proposes to establish a deadline for speakers to submit electronic
media files to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 12 p.m. on the business day
preceding a City Council meeting. Files must be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office at
clerk@smgov.net and include the Council meeting date, agenda item number, and
name of the public speaker. Electronic presentation materials would only be allowed on
agendized items. The earlier deadline would prevent access of corrupt files into the
3 of 3
City’s network; it would allow staff adequate time to prepare presentation materials for
public speakers, and would reduce delays and disruptions during the meeting. Upon
approval by Council, the new rule would take effect starting with the April 10, 2018
Council meeting and be included: in the Council’s Rules of Order; on all Council
agendas; and, the Council website to give the public adequate notice and give staff the
authority to enforce the new rule. Alternatives to staff’s recommendation are to keep
the current rules as is or modify the proposed deadline or procedure.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. December 15, 2015 staff report (Web link)
B. Resolution
C. Written Comments
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein@feinstein.org>
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:03 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc:Katie E. Lichtig; Rick Cole; Debbie Lee; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Outstanding concern on Modification of City Council Rules of Order Consent Item
Dear Councilmembers and Staff
Sorry for the late email. I had this email up and loaded to send to you on Saturday, and someone it stayed in the
‘draft’ folder until I discovered it now.
I have two outstanding concerns with the Modification of City Council Rules of Order Consent Item
1) I believe submission date for media files is too early - what is proposed is noon on the day **before** the
Council meeting. I respect the City Clerk and her office and I understand why this would be ideal for them, as
they could deal with incoming request on Monday and not have to worry about it on Tuesday, freeing them to
deal with other business to be ready for the meeting that night.
However, having been on the Council and a rank-and-file resident, I know how much of a bubble we are in,
those of us who work with City Hall. The average resident does not start to read the agenda once it comes out,
and often only begins to react to an upcoming agenda over the weekend before the meeting. Often someone
won’t even be clear if they can attend a council meeting to make a presentation until the day before or the day
of. Hence asking people to have a media file up and ready by noon on the day before is simply going to squeeze
out some people’s ability to make a full presentation to the Council, when in reality their media file might be a
very simple document.
As I comment in my op/ed below in the SMDP about this issue, I have personally visited many city council
meeting during my current Secretary of State campaign and have asked them on the day of their meetings to
broadcast a media file that I wanted as part of my presentation, and most of them have accommodated me. At
the same time, I understand that this is a volume question and that our City Clerk may be getting a higher
volume of such requests than other cities. If I were on the Council, I would talk with her on that and see
whether there is more time for community members to submit in advance, without over burdening the Clerk’s
office.
2) Perhaps even more importantly is that whatever deadline you all come up with, the staff recommendation is
to *not* allow media files during public comment on non-agendized items - not even to allow someone to use
the scanner! I see no justification for not allowing people to send in media files by the agreed upon deadline,
just because they want to speak on a non-agendized item, and especially no justification for not letting them put
something on the scanner.
What I wrote about this in my column is the following:
Perhaps of greater concern is the proposed codification of the existing ban on presenting media
files during public comment, on items not on the agenda. The stated reason is that the Council
cannot legally take any action on such items. “If something comes up during public input,
direction can be given, and an item can be agendized for a future meeting. At that time, the
public could submit a {visual} presentation as part of their comment.”
Item 3-J
03/27/18
1 of 4 Item 3-J
03/27/18
2
This misses the point about our democracy and our public airwaves. City Council meetings are
not just about what the Council does. They are a public forum to discuss public policy. Just
because there won’t be a binding decision on a given issue, doesn’t diminish the importance
of public testimony about it.
For example, what happens when the public comes to speak on an extremely important, non-
agendized item, and then no Councilmember asks that it be looked into by staff, and/or asks to
agendize it for possible future action? Depending upon the issue, that lack of action could speak
volumes – and have significant political implications.
Given that there are no technical barriers as long as the submission deadline is observed, what
are we gaining from preventing such visual speech during such public presentations?
Santa Monica prides itself on local democracy and is rich in technical infrastructure. Banning
such display of media files would put us behind the practice of many other cities.
Why give people the opportunity to speak with words and not images, when such speech is on
their public airwaves, takes place in their public forum and is about their local government?
I hope you will take these concerns into consideration tonight when you hear this issue.
Mike
http://smdp.com/your-column-here-10/165136
Political Representation and the Public Airwaves
California has the worst per-capita representation for its state legislature, of any state in the United States.
That’s one reason I’m running for Secretary of State, to change that.
The number of seats in the California state legislature was set in 1879 when our statewide population was
approximately 865,000. Today it is almost 40 million, and more people live within a single State Senate District
than lived in the entire state in 1879. Yet the number of seats – only 40 in the State Senate and 80 in the
State Assembly – have never been increased.
A too-small legislature makes it difficult to reflect California’s rich diversity – political, social, economic,
racial, ethnic and more — basic representation which should be the starting line for our democracy.
Having too few seats makes legislative districts very large and populous, making it very expensive to run for
office, limiting who can get elected, and placing enormous legislative power in very few hands — all while
giving disproportionate influence to those who can afford to fund our politicians, and/or have access to
lobby them.
By contrast, a larger state legislature – especially combined with elections by proportional representation –
would better represent California’s diversity, spread political power more widely, lower the cost to get elected
and reduce the corrupting influence of big money in politics. Running for Secretary of State on this
platform, how have I got this message out, and how does it relate to Santa Monica?
Item 3-J
03/27/18
2 of 4 Item 3-J
03/27/18
3
Using the public airwaves to campaign
As part of my campaign, I have been visiting city councils, county board of supervisors and other governmental
agencies, presenting my plan to elect a 500 seat, unicameral state legislature by proportional representation.
Speaking during public comment time on non-agendized items, I include how such a plan would empower local
residents and their cities/counties, making it legally relevant for the agenda of that governmental agency.
Campaigning in this manner allows me to present my plan to public officials who are part of the existing power
structure, as well as to reach politically active residents who attend city council meetings and/or watch them on
local cable TV. These are among the types of people whose support will be necessary if we ever are to truly
democratize our elections, by moving to elections by proportional representation.
Before I attend the meetings, I email the city/county clerk, asking them to broadcast a graphic of my plan in the
council chambers (and presumably on their local cable TV) during my presentation.
Some cities broadcast the graphic as a matter of course – either electronically if you send them a file in advance,
and/or via a hard copy using an in-chamber scanner. Other cities provide that option on agendized items – but
not during public comment on non-agendized items, like I have been speaking on. Still, other cities don’t give
the public that option on any agenda items at all.
The Public’s Right to View
Our local practice is on Tuesday’s City Council agenda as a consent calendar item
(https://www.smgov.net/departments/clerk/agendas.aspx). City Staff – specifically the City Clerk’s office – is
seeking to clarify and codify procedures for members of the public “to submit media files such as PowerPoint
presentations, videos, audio, images, and portable document formats (PDFs) to be set up before and during
their time for public comment.”
Staff has previously administratively accepted such media files until 6:30 p.m. on the day of City Council
meetings. But as the number of requests has grown significantly over the last five to six years, issues have
arisen protecting against computer viruses entering the City’s network, compatibility with the City’s software,
and the sheer volume of submissions, all with the disruptions and dangers these can create.
It is reasonable to require an earlier submission time to address these issues. City Staff is recommending noon
on the business day preceding a City Council meeting.
Of the cities that I went to speak to that allowed submitting media files, many accepted them on the day of the
Council meeting, others on the day before. Recently I submitted a graphic to the Ventura County Clerk at
midnight one night, and they had it ready for a Board of Supervisors meeting starting at 8:30 am the
next morning.
There is likely a direct relationship with the volume of anticipated public input and the time necessary to
process it, and Santa Monica is a more politically active community than most. But a noon deadline on the day
before City Council meetings may be too stringent for a city that invites public participation, asking residents to
be ready so early on a Monday workday on their volunteer time.
At a minimum allow use of the scanner
Item 3-J
03/27/18
3 of 4 Item 3-J
03/27/18
4
Perhaps of greater concern is the proposed codification of the existing ban on presenting media files during
public comment, on items not on the agenda. The stated reason is that the Council cannot legally take any action
on such items. “If something comes up during public input, direction can be given, and an item can
be agendized for a future meeting. At that time, the public could submit a {visual} presentation as part of their
comment.”
This misses the point about our democracy and our public airwaves. City Council meetings are not just about
what the Council does. They are a public forum to discuss public policy. Just because there won’t be a binding
decision on a given issue, doesn’t diminish the importance of public testimony about it.
For example, what happens when the public comes to speak on an extremely important, non-agendized item,
and then no Councilmember asks that it be looked into by staff, and/or asks to agendize it for possible future
action? Depending upon the issue, that lack of action could speak volumes – and have significant
political implications.
Given that there are no technical barriers as long as the submission deadline is observed, what are we gaining
from preventing such visual speech during such public presentations?
Santa Monica prides itself on local democracy and is rich in technical infrastructure. Banning such display of
media files would put us behind the practice of many other cities.
Why give people the opportunity to speak with words and not images, when such speech is on their public
airwaves, takes place in their public forum and is about their local government?
On Tuesday the Council should work with City Staff to determine the best deadline for submission of media
files, but it should insist that such media files be allowed to be displayed during all opportunities for public
comment.
Item 3-J
03/27/18
4 of 4 Item 3-J
03/27/18
(310) 656-4315
March 27, 2018
VIA EMAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Modifications to Procedures for Submission of Electronic
Presentation Materials
Hearing Date: March 27, 2018
Agenda Item No. 3-J
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of our firm. For the reasons explained below,
we urge the Council to reject City Staff’s proposed modification of the City Council
Rules of Order that would impose a deadline for the submission of electronic
presentation materials of 12 p.m. on Monday prior to a Council meeting. The proposed
modification will impose an undue burden on members of the public and project
applicants (including their architects) and require the use of paper handouts at Council
meetings. Instead, we would support a modification requiring materials to be submitted
by 5 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting.
Our main concern with the proposed modification is that it will deprive members
of the public and project applicants of the opportunity to adapt electronic presentation
materials in response to Staff Reports, Supplemental Staff Reports and Public
Correspondence received shortly in advance of Council meetings. City Staff Reports
are not released until the Friday before a Council meeting. Public Correspondence
addressing Council agenda items may be submitted up to and on the day of a Council
meeting, and City Staff’s current policy is to post public correspondence only late in the
afternoon on the day of a Council meeting (rather than piecemeal as it is received).
And, supplemental Staff Reports can be released on the day of a Council meeting.
Thus, submittal by Monday at noon of an electronic presentation that incorporates and
responds to the Staff Report, any supplemental Staff Reports, and written public
correspondence is not possible.
If the proposed modification is adopted, the result will be both a reduction in the
quality of public discourse and a likely vast increase in the use of paper handouts,
lisberger@hlkklaw.com
Santa Monica City Council
March 27, 2018
Page 2
copies of which would need to be provided for the Council, City Staff, and members of
the public. It is much more efficient for architects, applicants, and members of the
public to have the ability to integrate new information and responses to questions and
comments into an electronic presentation.
If this new rule is adopted, applicants, architects and members of the public
choosing to continue giving electronic presentations will give stale presentations not
based on the most recently available information, questions, and comments. The
discussion of such information and issues will instead be deferred to the question and
answer portions of a hearing, thereby causing inefficiencies and delays.
Alternatively, or in addition, applicants, architects and members of the public will
need to rely on paper presentation materials. In addition to being environmentally
unfriendly, reliance on paper handouts makes it more difficult for members of the public
viewing a Council meeting online or on television to see the materials presented at a
meeting and fully participate in public discussions.
In our experience the disruption to meetings caused by the submission of
electronic presentation materials on the day of Council meetings has been very minimal.
We would support a modification requiring a deadline of 5 p.m. on the day of a Council
meeting for submission of electronic presentation materials. A 5 p.m. deadline would
provide architects, applicants, and members of the public with time to respond to Staff
Reports and most public correspondence submitted in advance of a meeting as well as
providing City Staff with time (during closed session) to scan files for viruses.
A similar electronic presentation submittal requirement proposed by City Staff
was rejected by the Landmarks Commission. Such a requirement makes even less
sense for Council meetings because the time in which Council is in closed session
provides time to setup electronic presentation materials for use during a meeting.
While we appreciate Staff’s concerns regarding the potential for disruption to
meetings and City Staff’s administrative duties, these administrative concerns are
greatly outweighed by the values of encouraging robust, open, and high-quality public
discussion that is accessible to all.
Sincerely,
Carl W. Lisberger
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shawn Landres
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:08 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Pam
OConnor; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Bill Parent
Subject:Re: Item 3J
Dear Mayor Winterer, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, and Councilmembers Himmelrich, McKeown, O'Connor, O'Day,
and Vazquez,
We write as individual members of the Social Services Commission to request that the deadline for submission
of multimedia public comment presentations be set no earlier than noon on the same day as the Council
meeting.
The Social Services Commission meets on Mondays (along with the Airport Commission, Architectural Review
Board, Arts Commission, Disabilities Commission, Landmarks Commission, Task Force on the Environment,
and Santa Monica Pier Corporation).
The Social Services Commission frequently has sought to fulfill its advisory mandate by offering reactions and
recommendations to staff reports, themselves often posted just days in advance and therefore only just in time
for the Commission's consideration on the day prior to the regular Tuesday Council meeting.
Under such conditions, a 12:00 noon deadline on the Monday before a Tuesday Council meeting would make
any multimedia submission by the Commission (or individual commissioners) impossible, since a meeting
would not yet have occurred.
To allow sufficient time to prepare and submit materials following a Commission meeting, we
therefore recommend a Council comment submission deadline no earlier than noon on the day of the applicable
Council meeting.
In order to address the cybersecurity concerns raised by the City Clerk that led to the original staff
recommendation, we note that Council could limit the use of external hardware in favor of requiring electronic
submission without changing the submission deadline. Indeed, Council could explore the use of virus/malware
scanning technology via email and/or upload sites. An email or upload requirement also could help ensure
retention of materials submitted.
Thank you in advance for consideration of our recommendation.
2
Sincerely,
Shawn Landres, Chair
Bill Parent, Vice Chair
Social Services Commission
REFERENCE:
Resolution No. 11106
(CCS)