Column: New state law makes it easier to kick disruptive people out of public meetings | By The Perfect Enemy

Did we just have a summer respite from the wild public conduct that led to open meetings spinning out of control?

Or has the storm of outrage and disruptive antics that sometimes shut down those sessions passed?

For more than a year — through last spring — unruly behavior at government meetings seemed on the rise across the nation. In San Diego County, school board members and county officials in particular often were the target of commentary that crossed the bounds of decency.

This story is for subscribers

We offer subscribers exclusive access to our best journalism.
Thank you for your support.

The county Board of Supervisors in November voted for new protocols aimed at blunting such behavior, and last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that sets clearer rules for when public officials can throw disruptive people out of meetings.

In part, the chaos seemed an outgrowth of the political polarization experienced across the nation. Much of the outrage and threatening language tended to be at least tangentially related to government restrictions and policies enacted as a response to COVID-19.

The pandemic has wound down and many mandates that so angered some people have been lifted. Businesses and schools have long since reopened and once-required precautions such as wearing masks are voluntary in most places.

That’s why the measure Newsom signed into law may have seemed after the fact.

“This could prove to be unnecessary,” said Carl Luna, a political science professor at San Diego Mesa College and director of the Institute for Civil Civic Engagement.

He was specifically talking about the fading pandemic dynamic. But Luna said the law was a needed, if incremental, effort to clarify the state’s nearly 70-year-old open meeting law that could help elected officials regain control of meetings overtaken by people seeking to upend the proceedings.

“It’s a good step for updating the Brown Act for today’s reality,” he said.

If not COVID restrictions, there will be other volatile issues disputed before school boards and councils in the future, just as there have been in the past. The right to share one’s view in open public session long has been sacredly guarded. Moves to restrict that speech are greatly scrutinized and usually met with skepticism.

What seems to be changing is the increasing acceptability among some people of actions that impede government’s ability to conduct public business, along with growing concerns over the intimidation and safety of elected officials.

The new state law requires the official running a meeting to warn a disruptive person that their behavior will result in their removal if it continues. If the individual does not cease, that person can be ejected from the meeting.

Senate Bill 1100 defines “disrupting” as engaging in behavior “that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of meetings…”

That can mean a failure to comply with “reasonable and lawful regulations” adopted by the government body or actions that constitute “use of force or a true threat of force.”

There’s still room for interpretation and the definition eventually may be refined through legal challenges.

The California State Association of Counties and the Urban Counties of California jointly sought specific guidance written into the law, according to The Associated Press.

A nonpartisan group called Californians for Good Governance expressed concern that the law could become “a general license to limit public participation.”

But even ardent First Amendment defenders acknowledge some restrictions are justified to allow government to operate if meetings are truly being disrupted.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors’ meetings became the forum for many people with grievances about COVID restrictions — even those enacted by the state, not the county. Commentary ranged from people who were genuinely upset, to those who were playing to the crowd and to others who leaned into what generously might be called performance art.

None of that is new. But perhaps there’s greater political currency in exploiting that behavior in today’s divisive, digital world where harsh and extreme views often go viral.

Supervisors were accused of all sorts of wrongdoings and called all kinds of names. Some speakers engaged in abusive and racist language, and officials voiced concern that the tone was creating a hostile work environment for employees.

Still, people have a lot of leeway in what they can say at meetings, but not necessarily when they say it. During a board meeting in May regarding an ordinance opposing discrimination against women, a dispute erupted over language about transgender rights. Two women were shouting from the back of the room and wouldn’t stop. Deputies removed them and ordered other members of the public out of the room.

The hearing resumed an hour later with speakers entering one at a time to deliver comments, according to Deborah Sullivan Brennan of The San Diego Union-Tribune.

In a September incident that drew national attention, anti-mask protesters forced their way into a room that was supposed to hold a Poway Unified school board meeting. The meeting room was not open to the public because of COVID restrictions, but the session was streamed live and speakers could address the board online. The meeting was shut down and some of the protesters declared themselves the new board members. They even held a mock swearing-in ceremony.

There have been reports of intimidation and threats of public officials beyond meetings, both locally and across the country. So far, it has been hard to quantify the level of risk facing public officials.

Last month, a study was launched to collect data on the threats and harassment directed against locally elected officials in San Diego County by Luna’s Institute for Civil Civic Engagement and the University of San Diego’s Violence, Inequality and Power Lab. (A handful of other institutions are partnering in the study, including The San Diego Union-Tribune.)

Luna pointed to studies over the years that link uncivil behavior and speech to violence. Despite the efforts of organizations like his, he doesn’t see a trend toward more civilized dialogue soon.

“There’s a national political fever and until it breaks it’s going to continue to burn,” he said. ” … I’m just happy we haven’t had more violence.”

These days, it seems talk isn’t always just talk.

---

Published on The Perfect Enemy at https://bit.ly/3KG2orF.