Procedures updated for first time in two years give presiding officer broader discretion to curtail speaker time, with six-month review added after residents raise concerns about reduced public access.
IG delayed year post-vote, Doors Open Riverside Oct 25, 14 free historic tours
Eighth annual event provides rare public access to Harada House, Trujillo Adobe and other architectural landmarks.
Procedures updated for first time in two years give presiding officer broader discretion to curtail speaker time, with six-month review added after residents raise concerns about reduced public access.
City Council unanimously approved revisions to its meeting procedures Tuesday, granting the presiding officer new discretion to limit public comment time while also imposing 15-minute debate limits on councilmembers themselves.
The changes, which come as part of a required two-year review of the council's rules of procedure, drew concern from residents who argued the modifications could restrict public participation in local government. In response to those concerns, the council added a six-month review period to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes and removed a requirement that would have forced councilmembers to explain "no" votes on routine consent calendar items.
The most contentious revision gives the mayor or mayor pro tem authority to reduce public comment time from the standard three minutes per speaker based on factors including agenda length and the number of speaker cards submitted. Previously, such reductions required a vote by a majority of the council.
"When you're affecting public comment and looking at limiting it the way that you're [giving discretion] to the presiding officer, that's one thing that should be brought at an evening session," said Ward 1 resident Jason Hunter during public comment. "You know, we don't have a king here, okay? We have a city council, and I expect a city council to control these kind of things, not a presiding officer."
Several frequent public commenters voiced opposition to the changes during the meeting, with some arguing that limiting public comment undermines democratic participation.
Malissa McKeith, who called in remotely, referenced her experience as public attorney for the Community Redevelopment Agency in Los Angeles, where meetings featured one-minute public comment limits.
"The benefits to our democracy of giving people the opportunity to say what they think, to petition their government, even when it's long and frustrating like it was the other night, is really important," McKeith said, referring to last week's meeting on immigration enforcement transparency that drew more than 60 in-person public commenters on a single agenda item.
Kevin Dawson objected specifically to giving the presiding officer unilateral authority over comment time. "It lends itself to abuse. I've seen that abuse in this venue and in others," he said. "This is what democracy looks like. And if I've been down at council chambers when discussions were going to midnight, and it was a real grind, but when something calls for vigorous public debate, that's what we do here."
Patrick Maloney, also from Ward 1, emphasized the importance of the three-minute speaking period. "These three minutes are actually very sacred. It's a moment where it gives you trust in your city because your city council is actually looking at you, listening to you, and being able to absorb what you have to say," he said.
Ward 1 Councilmember Philip Falcone, who chairs the Governmental Processes Committee that developed the recommendations, defended the revisions as "mild changes" that bring the city into compliance with state law and create efficiency.
"I've been on the city council for over a year and a half and that entire time only once has public comment been shortened to two minutes and that was last week," Falcone said. "So this is not something that happens regularly."
Falcone noted the changes also impose time limits on councilmembers themselves — 10 minutes for initial remarks and five minutes for subsequent comments, with a 15-minute total per item. "If we expect the public to make a point in three minutes or in a rare case, two minutes, I fully expect the city council up here to be able to make a point within 15 minutes," he said.
Ward 5 Councilmember Sean Mill emphasized that the rules are standard practice at other levels of government. "This isn't a public meeting. This is a business meeting that is held in public," Mill said.
Mill noted attending Air Quality Management District meetings where public comment was limited to 30 seconds per speaker, and that at last week's meeting with approximately 70 public commenters, shortening time to two minutes helped the meeting run more efficiently.
Beyond the public comment provisions, the updated rules include:
Meeting Schedule Changes:
Agenda Management:
Debate Time Limits:
Dress Code:
Regional Appointments:
One proposed change would have required councilmembers voting "no" or abstaining on consent calendar items to provide an explanation, or else the item would automatically be pulled for full discussion.
Ward 7 Councilmember Steve Hemenway expressed concern that the provision created a different standard for consent items than for regular discussion items. "I worry that this sets a different standard than for anything else," Hemenway said. "If we don't require it in discussion, I don't see how we can require it on consent."
Falcone agreed to remove the requirement from the resolution. "That was a different perspective that we didn't hear and that we didn't think of in committee," he said.
Ward 2 Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes raised concerns about the 15-minute debate limit for councilmembers, arguing it could prevent thorough discussion of complex policy issues.
"When I was elected, I don't believe my community elected me to then have a period time limit to advocate, to speak for them, to address complex policy issues or very important discussion items that we have to get into," Cervantes said. "It's going to impact over 330,000 people."
In response, Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Conder, presiding in Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson's absence, suggested bringing the changes back to the Governmental Processes Committee for review in six months. Cervantes agreed to support the resolution with that modification.
"If it doesn't work, changes could be made in the future," said Ward 6 Councilmember Jim Perry, noting the council can make adjustments sooner if needed.
The updated rules take effect immediately, with the Governmental Processes Committee reviewing their implementation in approximately six months.
Four council members vote to push decision to mid-November, citing need to strengthen language about independent legal counsel.
City Council will establish the voter-approved Office of the Inspector General with expanded oversight authority, consider meeting rule changes including Mayor scheduling authority, and review extending the tobacco retail permit moratorium through 2026.
Police say $100 penalties fail to deter commercial vehicles from residential areas; new $1,000 fines would target drivers who view current citations as 'cost of doing business'.
Resolution calling for clear identification of federal agents passes 4-3 despite concerns about jurisdictional limits and symbolic nature.
Let us email you Riverside's news and events every morning. For free!
