City Council Tables Discussion on Returning to In-Person Meetings

After a six hour meeting on Monday, the City Council made the decision to delay taking action on an important topic.

The City Council agreed to delay providing direction to City staff for returning to in-person public meetings.

The move came after a lengthy public hearing on a planned development.

Several councilmembers have expressed a desire for a hybrid model that would allow people to attend open-to-the-public City meetings in person, while others could participate remotely.

The remote model would cost more money, and legally councilmembers that attend remotely must open the location where they are teleconferencing to the public.

“It takes all of our staff to hold an in-person meeting. It takes all of our staff and more to hold a hybrid meeting,” City Manager Miguel Márquez said last month.

The Department of Information Technology provided the City Council with four options. 

According to the department’s report, the City Council could consider returning to all in-person meetings but making public comment available only in-person and through written correspondence. The first option would cost $200,000 annually. 

The second option would allow remote public comment at City Council meetings only. This would cost $250,000 annually. 

The third option would allow remote public comment at City Council and Council committee meetings. This would cost $300,000.

Option number four allows remote public comment for all bodies. A funding of $700,000 annually is needed if the City Council will push through with this option. 

“Of the options suggested, staff recommends options 1 through 4 in that order for a few reasons. First, it represents the options from least to most complex to implement and manage by staff,” the Department of Information Technology’s report read. 

“Secondly, it represents the options from lowest to highest cost to support. Thirdly, when looking at the full costs over a 10-year horizon, options 2 through 4 incur $2.5-$7 million dollars in that span, money that could be utilized in other service areas in the City,” the report added.  

During the meeting, Pasadena resident Sonja Berndt urged the City Council to allow the public to continue to participate via Zoom when the chamber’s doors reopen.

“While I respect our clerk and its staff greatly and appreciate that allowing public comment remotely is more costly and creates complexity, I disagree with staff recommendation,” Berndt said. “Public engagement is critical. It allows community members to bring their ideas and concerns directly to city leaders and allows other community members to support those ideas and concerns as well.”

Berndt said many people do not have the ability to attend in-person Council meetings to make comments due to work responsibilities and/or family caregiving duties.

“Please allow public comment at City Council meetings both in person and remotely when the Council opens its doors to the public again. That option is only $50,000 more than current cost.” 

The City Council agreed to consider the options provided by the city staff during its November 14 meeting.

According to the Brown Act which governs open meetings across the state, the state legislature amended the Brown Act in the 1990s, allowing local legislative bodies to take advantage of information age technologies for the conduct of public meetings, with certain conditions.

 According to those amendments, there must be a quorum of the legislative body participating from locations within the jurisdiction.

Each remote meeting location must be identified in the meeting agenda.

Meeting agendas must be posted at all teleconference locations; Each remote meeting location must be made “accessible” to the public, presumably including members of the public with disabilities. 

The agenda must allow for public comment at each remote meeting location, and all votes in remote meetings must be taken by roll call Mayor Victor Gordo expressed his desire to open the chamber doors to the public for in-person meetings last month.

“I’d like to see us back in front of the public by the middle of October,” Gordo had said. 

The City Council has been meeting virtually — after closing down entirely for a short time —  since a local emergency was declared at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In order to continue meeting online, the Council must pass a resolution roughly every 30-days under the terms of Assembly Bill 361.

Beyond that initial 30-day period, it must confirm the circumstances of the state of emergency and make required findings at least 30 days after adoption of the resolution and every 30 days thereafter.

An executive order signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom allowing virtual meetings and suspending parts of the Brown Act, which governs open meetings of legislative bodies, ended on Sept. 30.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ reopened its doors for in-person public attendance for the first time since the early days of the pandemic late last month.

The decision to resume in-person meetings was prompted by the county’s recent move from the “medium” to “low” COVID-19 community activity level, as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Many government agencies are now returning to in-person meetings; a subset are continuing some level of remote participation,” according to a City staff report. “As the Council considers returning to in-person meetings, multiple factors should be taken into consideration, including but not limited to: Effective engagement and deliberations of Council and other legislative City bodies, robust local public participation from throughout the community; and complexity of meeting management due to process and technology requirements.”