SR 09-26-2023 5K
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023
Agenda Item: 5.K
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David White, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Civility at Public
Meetings Policy set forth in Resolution No. 10642 (CCS)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. Adopt the attached resolution to amend and restate the Civility at Public
Meetings set forth in resolution No. 10642 (CCS) (the Civility Policy).
Summary
This report complies with Council direction to staff on July 26, 2022 to return with a
resolution to adopt and promote a statement against hate. The statement against hate
has been added to the City’s Code of Ethics and will be incorporated to the Code of
Civility for public meetings through the attached resolution. The resolution was
previously adopted on December 13, 2011, and would be amended and restated if
Council adopts the attached resolution (Attachment A).
Discussion
The City of Santa Monica has seen increase in antisemitic, transphobic, homophobic,
racist, and discriminatory hate speech targeted at both individuals and groups in recent
years. Since 2020, Council has reaffirmed its commitment to equity and inclusion in a
number of ways, including support for the creation of a Racial Equity Committee
5.K
Packet Pg. 1106
2 of 3
comprised of city staff from every department who develop and lead projects aimed at
increasing equity each year, support for equity impact assessments to measure the
impact of our work as a city organization, and a commitment to an ongoing review of
city policies to identify areas where the city’s commitment to equity can be
strengthened.
While equity and inclusion have been core values of the City for the last 5 years, these
values have not been embedded in foundational documents for the city, including our
Code of Ethics and City Council’s Code of Civility for public meetings. In July of 2022,
Council directed staff to amend these policies to clearly state its position regarding hate
motivated incidents in Santa Monica. The change has been made to the City’s Code of
Ethics, and staff has prepared a resolution to amend and restate the civility at public
meetings policy set forth in Resolution No. 10642 (CCS) (Attachment A) , which is
excerpted below and attached to this report for adoption by Council.
Statement Against Hate
Hate has no place in Santa Monica. Across the nation and here in Santa Monica, we
have witnessed an increase in antisemitic, transphobic, homophobic, racist and
discriminatory hate speech targeted at both individuals and groups. Equity and inclusion
remain at the core of Santa Monica’s values, and the City will not allow abusive or
threatening hate speech, intolerance, or dehumanization to prevail over basic civil
respect and human decency. We will continue to celebrate, include, and uplift the
diverse communities who live, work, and play in Santa Monica.
Environmental Review
The Civility Policy is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it
can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may
have a significant effect on the environment.” Therefore, it can be seen with certainty
that the proposed policy would not result in adverse physical impacts on the
environment, and as such, is categorically exempt from CEQA.
5.K
Packet Pg. 1107
3 of 3
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
July 26, 2022 Request of Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers Davis
and de la Torre that the City Council adopt and promote the
attached statement against hate and direct the City Manager
and City Clerk to incorporate its language into the City’s
Code of Ethics and the City Council’s Code of Civility for
public meetings.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required
in the future.
Prepared By: Lisa Parson, Equity and Inclusion Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Amended and Restated Civility Policy
B. Written Comments
5.K
Packet Pg. 1108
1
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CIVILITY AT PUBLIC
MEETINGS POLICY SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 10642 (CCS)
WHEREAS, Council adopted Resolution 10642 (CCS) Endorsing Standards of
Behavior that Promote Civility at All Public Meetings (the Civility Policy) on December 13,
2011; and
WHEREAS, the Civility Policy sets forth guidelines to encourage and facilitate the
democratic process, individual rights of expression, robust debate, and tolerance for
disparate views; and
WHEREAS, the Civility Policy applies to all persons attending public meetings in
Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, as a Council Discussion Item, the Council gave
direction to adopt and promote a statement against hate, and to add it to the City’s Code
of Ethics and Code of Civility for public meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to amend and restate the Civility Policy in
Resolution No. 10642 (CCS) to include the City’s Statement Against Hate, as adopted by
Council at its July 26, 2022 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
5.K.a
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Amended and Restated Civility Policy [Revision 1] (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
2
SECTION 1. The Civility Policy set forth in Resolution No. 10642 (CCS) is hereby
amended and restated to read:
In order to safeguard participatory democracy in Santa Monica, all persons
attending public meetings in Santa Monica shall strive to:
1. Treat everyone courteously;
2. Listen to others respectfully;
3. Exercise self-control;
4. Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints;
5. Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate;
6. Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights,
inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions.
Statement Against Hate: Hate has no place in Santa Monica. Across the nation
and here in Santa Monica, we have witnessed an increase in antisemitic, transphobic,
homophobic, racist and discriminatory hate speech targeted at both individuals and
groups. Equity and inclusion remain at the core of Santa Monica’s values, and the City
will not allow abusive or threatening hate speech, intolerance, or dehumanization to
prevail over basic civil respect and human decency. We will continue to celebrate,
include, and uplift the diverse communities who live, work, and play in Santa Monica.
Be it Further Resolved, that the City Council, all City Boards and Commissions,
and City staff shall promote the use of and adherence to these guidelines for behavior at
all public meetings within the City.
5.K.a
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: Amended and Restated Civility Policy [Revision 1] (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
3
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
5.K.a
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Amended and Restated Civility Policy [Revision 1] (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:stayfree7 <stayfree7@protonmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 8:00 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Douglas Sloan
Cc:David White; Denise Anderson-Warren; Nikima Newsome
Subject:---> item 5-K: OPEN LETTER to City Council re censorship of public comments
EXTERNAL
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2023/09/25/opinion/open-letter-to-council-alleges-city-intends-to-censor-public-
comments/7809.html
Open Letter to Council Alleges City Intends to Censor Public
Comments
Update to Civility Policy unconstitutional, writes resident
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.facebo ok
Share
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.twitter
Tweet
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.pinterest
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
0 Comments
September 25, 2023
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Mayor Gleam Davis (left), City Attorney Douglas Sloan (right).
Dear Mayor Davis, Councilmembers and City Attorney Sloan,
The purpose of this Open letter is to express grave concerns regarding the constitutionality
of item 5-K agendized for the upcoming September 26, 2023 City Council meeting.
The name of the item is "Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Civility at
Public Meetings Policy set forth in Resolution No. 10642 (CCS)." The item seeks the addition
Item 5.K 09/26/23
1 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
2
of the City's Statement Against Hate to the existing civility policy. The Statement was
originally adopted in July 2022, and was recently added to the City's Code of Ethics.
It is my belief that this item seeks to legitimize censorship at public meetings under the
guise of a civility policy.
The City's Statement Against Hate reads in part:
"Equity and inclusion remain at the core of Santa Monica's values, and the City will not
allow abusive or threatening hate speech, intolerance, or dehumanization to prevail over basic
civil respect and human decency. (...) Be it Further Resolved, that the City Council, all City Boards
and Commissions, and City staff shall promote the use of and adherence to these guidelines for
behavior at all public meetings within the City [emphasis added]."
In contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union's website reads in part:
"Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or
unpopular. Where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the
ACLU believes that more speech - not less - is the answer most consistent with our constitutional
values."
Additionally, "Freedom of Expression – ACLU Position Paper" offers a powerful quote:
As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against
any Nazi-type regime in this country."
It is in the public interest to ensure that the approval of item 5-K by the Council will not
result in a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the California
Constitution, the Brown Act, or any other applicable law. Therefore I request that prior to
the Council's vote on the item, the City Attorney respond at the 9/26/23 Council meeting to
the concerns raised by this letter.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection to and opportunity for
free speech in public forums. The public meeting of a board or council is considered a
"limited public forum," which means the government can regulate the time, place, and
manner of speech.
To my knowledge, ample case law exists pertaining to civility policies at public meetings.
Courts have concluded such policies must be viewpoint neutral, may not be
unconstitutionally vague, ambiguous or overbroad, and may not create a chilling effect on
the public.
Item 5.K 09/26/23
2 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
3
Here the Council seeks the inclusion of the City's Statement Against Hate in the civility policy
for public meetings. The Statement deplores "hate speech." As you must know, no legal
definition of "hate speech" exists. It is unclear what kind of language and/or viewpoints the
Council is seeking to discourage. What might be considered "hate speech" can vary from
speaker to speaker and listener to listener. Such ambiguity alone creates a chilling effect on
the speakers.
Sadly, the intent to create a chilling effect (which is a form of censorship) was actually
articulated by one of the sponsors of the City's Statement Against Hate, then-
Councilmember, now Mayor, Gleam Davis in July 2022.
Said Ms. Davis:
"My hope is that by adopting this, many people will think twice before some of the hateful things
that have been said, posted, you know, on social media, and, you know... I don't know... No one is
trying to curtail speech, and no one is trying to reduce First Amendment rights, but I do think... I
would hope that in a community like Santa Monica, we are... people would think twice before
posting things that are... I don't know any other word for it but, just horrific, the things I have
seen. So this is just a reminder to people that good policy is made when we have civil discussions
[emphasis added]."
Such clearly articulated intent to create a chilling effect cannot be mistaken to understand
the addition of the Statement Against Hate to the civility policy as merely "aspirational
government speech."
It is shocking that the intent to curtail free speech was publicly communicated from the dais
by then-Councilmember, now Mayor Davis, who is an attorney and often claims to be a
champion of the First Amendment.
Please note that local governments and their officials, employees, places and means of
communication are subject to First Amendment principles, and risk-wise, are subject to civil
rights liability, including the potential for individual liability per 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I urge Mayor Davis and the Council to do their due diligence to ensure the constitutionality
and otherwise legality of item 5-K, and to appraise the public of their findings at the Council
meeting on Tuesday September 26, 2023 prior to voting on the item.
Censorship has no place in Santa Monica.
Regards,
Item 5.K 09/26/23
3 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
4
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Olga Zurawska
Santa Monica resident
member of The First Amendment Coalition
----------------------------
Item 5.K 09/26/23
4 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elaine Golden-Gealer <elaine@elaine360.com>
Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 9:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Elaine Golden-Gealer
Subject:OPPOSE ITEM 5-K If you care about Free Speech & the First Amendment - Vote NO on Item 5-K
tomorrow night
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2023/09/25/opinion/open‐letter‐to‐council‐alleges‐
city‐intends‐to‐censor‐public‐comments/7809.html
Item 5.K 09/26/23
5 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 12:21 PM
To:councilmailbox@santamonica.gov; councilmtgitems; David White; doug.sloan@santamonica.gov;
Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline
Torosis
Subject:Item 5K. City Council Meeting 9/26/2023
EXTERNAL
The actions of Gleam Davis to restrict speech is both hypocritical and
disturbingly fascist in nature.
While I do not particularly enjoy the rants of some, I find the ACTIONS of
Ms Davis for one, and others on the Council to be of a far more egregious
and damaging nature. They talk over residents, they do not listen, they
turn their backs and very rarely respond. It is clear that Ms Davis only
listens to those who tow her party line..as do Zwick and Torosis. There is
no respect for residents. They do not listen. They do as they please.
Perhaps this long time abuse by Councils, past and present has something
to do with the spicy rhetoric they now seek to restrict in an
unconstitutional power play.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER Ms Davis..yours have sold our town out. To me,
that is far more vulgar and horrific. Get down with your bad self.
Danielle Charney
Resident Since 1982
So tired of it all.
Item 5.K 09/26/23
6 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 8:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 5-k Invites Endless Disruptions by Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem, Board Chair, aka Big Brother
Arbitrators & holds them Personally Liable for First Amendment Violations
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council and City Attorney,
The points made in, "Open Letter to Council Alleges City Intends to Censor Public Comments" published by the SM
Observer points out that your resolution is an attempt to chill the public's First Amendment Right to free
speech. (https://www.smobserved.com/story/2023/09/25/opinion/open-letter-to-council-alleges-city-intends-
to-censor-public-comments/7809.html)
This council resolution (Resolution No. 10642) fails to define "hate speech", the very thing you are attempting
to curtail at city council, board and commission meetings.
Where are the definitions for:
"hate speech"?
"abusive hate speech"?
"threatening hate speech"?
Who decides what it IS "hate speech", "abusive hate speech", "threatening hate speech" and what ARE
NOT these things?
How is the public, whose languages, cultures, and various views points and expressions expected to feel
included and participate when you present a resolution that is so completely sketchy?
How does your definitions apply in conjunction with:
"intolerance" ?
"dehumanization"?
The fact is that these are subjective terms intended to be used to label people based on who is saying what about
whom and who is hearing it.
This single example of the inconvenient truth of your resolution bears all the hallmarks of chilling speech to satisfy your
means.
CASE:
Supporters of candidate A over candidate B sit through a public council meeting and are forced to endure
"intolerant/abusive hate speech" interjected into the comments by speakers who support candidate B. Because the
arbitrator(s) of "Hate Speech" happen to those of you sitting on the dias failed to prevent such speech, likely because
the position(s) spoken aligned with your own, then you are liable for violating your policy, correct? In other words, the
arbitrators of "hate speech" could be only what Big Brother says it is, correct?
Item 5.K 09/26/23
7 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
2
Countless opportunities exist with the passage of this resolution to CREATE more disruption as the arbitrators, namely
the mayor or mayor pro‐tem and commission chairs would be required to act to censure all speech to compensate for
this word salad of a resolution, severely lacking comprehension by the people you knowingly expect to apply it to.
It is my belief that as lawyers, Mayor Davis and Councilwoman Torosis are fully aware of the resolution's attempt to chill
free speech.
It's odd that they along with the originator, former Mayor Himmelrich, have together managed to exclude dissenters,
women’s rights defenders, journalists, etc., from the verbage.
Finally, should the resolution pass and an individual's First Amendment Rights be violated, as they most certainly will be
violated, the person or persons having violated an individual's first amendment rights will be held personally liable per
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Which councilperson is willing to take the risk of being sued for everything they have?
Which member of a board of commission is willing to take this same risk?
In addition to chilling free speech, this resolution appears to be an AGGRESSIVE attempt to dissuade members of the
public from serving our city.
Shame on you!
#morespeechnotless
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CIVILITY AT PUBLIC
MEETINGS POLICY SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 10642 (CCS)
WHEREAS, Council adopted Resolution 10642 (CCS) Endorsing Standards of
Behavior that Promote Civility at All Public Meetings (the Civility Policy) on December 13,
2011; and
WHEREAS, the Civility Policy sets forth guidelines to encourage and facilitate the
democratic process, individual rights of expression, robust debate, and tolerance for
disparate views; and
WHEREAS, the Civility Policy applies to all persons attending public meetings in
Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, as a Council Discussion Item, the Council gave
direction to adopt and promote a statement against hate, and to add it to the City’s Code
of Ethics and Code of Civility for public meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to amend and restate the Civility Policy in
Resolution No. 10642 (CCS) to include the City’s Statement Against Hate, as adopted by
Council at its July 26, 2022 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Civility Policy set forth in Resolution No. 10642 (CCS) is hereby
amended and restated to read:
In order to safeguard participatory democracy in Santa Monica, all persons
attending public meetings in Santa Monica shall strive to:
Item 5.K 09/26/23
8 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
3
1. Treat everyone courteously;
2. Listen to others respectfully;
3. Exercise self‐control;
4. Give open‐minded consideration to all viewpoints;
5. Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate;
6. Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights,
inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions.
Statement Against Hate: Hate has no place in Santa Monica. Across the nation
and here in Santa Monica, we have witnessed an increase in antisemitic, transphobic,
homophobic, racist and discriminatory hate speech targeted at both individuals and
groups. Equity and inclusion remain at the core of Santa Monica’s values, and the City
will not allow abusive or threatening hate speech, intolerance, or dehumanization to
prevail over basic civil respect and human decency. We will continue to celebrate,
include, and uplift the diverse communities who live, work, and play in Santa Monica.
Be it Further Resolved, that the City Council, all City Boards and Commissions,
and City staff shall promote the use of and adherence to these guidelines for behavior at
all public meetings within the City.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ‐ Albert Einstein
Item 5.K 09/26/23
9 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:GABRIEL NAVARRO <gabestepa@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:46 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:VOTE NO ON 5-K
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone 11 Pro
Item 5.K 09/26/23
10 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Kelli <kellidurode@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:VOTE NO ON 5K
EXTERNAL
Please VOTE NO on 5K!! I object to the removal of the First Amendment for speakers! We live here, pay taxes, have
businesses so we have the right to speak up for ourselves and our city!
Item 5.K 09/26/23
11 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Sandy Laderas <nuts4film@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote no on 5-K
EXTERNAL
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 5.K 09/26/23
12 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Horace Hertz <hhertz@premierbh.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:38 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NO ON 5K
EXTERNAL
DO NOT SUPPRESS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The materials in this message are private and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, Protected
Health Information within the meaning of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and/or
Medical Information within the meaning of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). If you are not the
intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, forwarding, printing, distribution
or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may be unlawful.
If you have received this message by error, or have reason to believe that you are not authorized to receive it, please
notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or destruction of these documents and delete this message.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in
Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in;
Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.
Item 5.K 09/26/23
13 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:stephen bourcier <stephen.bourcier@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:27 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote No on 5-k
EXTERNAL
Freedom of speech is a protected right. I urge you to vote no on 5‐k.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 5.K 09/26/23
14 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Janet Heinle <jerzwmn@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:18 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:VOTE NO
EXTERNAL
VOTE NO ON 5-K
Janet Heinle
1047 Lincoln 90403
Item 5.K 09/26/23
15 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1126 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joyce Urode <gtz2go@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:23 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:vote no on 5 k
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 5.K 09/26/23
16 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Gail Gordon <gailrgordon@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:No on 5K
EXTERNAL
Please give the public a voice. Do not silence us. Our 1st amendment rights are based in our governments consƟtuƟon.
We live in this city and should be allowed to be part of the decisions that affect us.
Respecƞully
Gail Gordon
Sent from my iPhone
Item 5.K 09/26/23
17 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Debra Rocco <darocco@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:04 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:VOTE NO ON 5-K
EXTERNAL
Sent from Debra’s ᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥ
Item 5.K 09/26/23
18 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Catherine Rist <kittyrist@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:VOTE NO ON 5-K
EXTERNAL
Do the right thing.
Item 5.K 09/26/23
19 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:KARI NORDAAS <knordaas@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote NO on 5K
EXTERNAL
Kari Nordaas
2130 Oak st
SM 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 5.K 09/26/23
20 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Deborah Dinsmore <mgsplace100@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Plz vote NO on 5-k
EXTERNAL
Deborah Dinsmore
Santa Monica, CA
Item 5.K 09/26/23
21 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jessica Rogers <jessicafroehlinger@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote No on 5K
EXTERNAL
I am thoroughly against making any changes that would limit free speech during public comment. It is much
more dangerous to limit free speech and to listen to speech that can be interpreted as hateful.
Item 5.K 09/26/23
22 of 22 Item 5.K 09/26/23
5.K.b
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: Written Comments (5970 : Resolution - Civility at Public Meetings Policy)