[Note from BenIndy: Earlier today we posted a brief reminder of changes proposed to Benicia’s voluntary campaign ordinance and public engagement policies (after we posted a long-form description of changes last Thursday). Benicia resident and longtime activist Bob Berman has written Benicia City Council to protest the proposed changes, how they were presented in the agenda packet, and how they were noticed to the public. Folks who are struggling with what to write or call into the meeting tonight to say can use Bob’s letter as a launch-off point for their own public comment.]
Bob Berman.
By Bob Berman, May 3, 2024
Re: Council meeting agenda item 22.C – OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I am writing to you regarding the proposal to decrease the amount of time public speakers may address a City public body (City Council, Planning Commission, etc.) from 5 minutes to 3 minutes on your May 7, 2024 agenda. I urge you to reject this proposal.
Among the various staff recommendations to the City Council is the following:
3. Decrease the amount of time public speakers may address a City public body in open session from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.
Earlier this year the City’s Open Government Commission (OGC) was asked to review several staff recommendations regarding changes to the City’s campaign ordinance.
It is unclear to me why the issue of reducing the time for public comments (from five minutes to three minutes) is incorporated into the update of the campaign ordinances. Nevertheless, at its April 23rd meeting the OGC decided not to recommend any change to the time limits for public speakers to address a City body.
As each of you are surely aware Benicia residents are very engaged in the City’s public participation process in each of the various commissions, boards, and the City Council. For one who has provided public comments during Benicia hearings for more than 40 years I can attest to the fact it is often difficult to say everything you want to say within five minutes, and it would be even more difficult if speakers were limited to three minutes.
I am disappointed that this proposal is buried in the staff report and that the City has not provided more public notice of this, plus other proposed changes, to the City’s campaign ordinance.
I do not support the change to the time speakers have to address a City public body and urge the City Council to not approve this proposal.
Yours Truly,
Bob Berman
How to write and email a public comment
If you would like to make your opinion on the topic of the proposed revisions known to City Council, members of the public may provide public comment via email to the City Clerk by email at lwolfe@ci.benicia.ca.us. Any comment submitted to the City Clerk should indicate to which item of the agenda the comment relates. (THE PROPOSED REVISIONS ARE IN AGENDA ITEM 22.C – OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (City Attorney’s Office).)
– Comments received by 2:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be electronically forwarded to the City Council and posted on the City’s website.
– Comments received after 2:00 pm, but before the start time of the meeting will be electronically forwarded to the City Council but will not be posted on the City’s website.
In your email, put the item number in your subject line (e.g., “Public comment re. Item 22.C”).
In your email body, share why you support or oppose the changes.
How to view the meeting and/or make a live public comment
You can participate in the meeting in one of four ways:
1) Attend in person at Council Chambers
2) Cable T.V. Broadcast – Check with your cable provider for your local government broadcast channel.
3) Livestream online at www.ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas
4) Zoom Meeting (link below)
Use participant option to “raise hand” during the public comment period for the item you wish to speak on. Please note, your electronic device must have microphone capability. Once unmuted, you will have up to 5 minutes to speak.
Dial in with phone:
Before the start of the item you wish to comment on, call any of the numbers below. If one is busy, try the next one.
1 669 900 9128
1 346 248 7799
1 253 215 8782
1 646 558 8656
1 301 715 8592
1 312 626 6799
• Enter the meeting ID number: 885 0804 7557(*please note this is an updated ID number*.)
Say the item you wish to speak on. (AGAIN, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE IN ITEM 22.C.)
Once unmuted, you will have up to 5 minutes to speak.
Enter password: 449303
When prompted for a Participant ID, press #.
Press *9 on your phone to “raise your hand” when the Mayor calls for public comment.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email City Clerk Lisa Wolfe at lwolfe@ci.benicia.ca.us, who will use her best efforts to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety.
[Note from BenIndy: Last Thursday we posted a long-form description of changes proposed to Benicia’s voluntary campaign limits cost and public participation policies. Here is a brief reminder of the details and the same information for how to show your support or opposition to the changes, should you wish to do so.]
BenIndy Editorial, May 7, 2024
Tonight at 6pm, the Benicia City Council will vote on proposed revisions to the city’s campaign ordinances and public engagement policies.
Some community members support these changes, particularly those that close loopholes in political practices. However, other revisions have been criticized for potentially restricting public involvement in governance.
Key contested proposals from city staff, opposed by Benicia’s Open Government Commission (OGC), include aligning the city’s response time for public records requests with state law, and reducing public speaking time at meetings from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.
The OGC, established in 2005 to improve government transparency and public participation, reviewed these proposals but declined to recommend the reduction in public speaking time, citing lack of evidence that it would enhance meeting efficiency.
Tonight’s Council meeting will be crucial in determining the balance between reducing staff burdens and maintaining robust public participation.
How to write and email a public comment
If you would like to make your opinion on the topic of the proposed revisions known to City Council, members of the public may provide public comment via email to the City Clerk by email at lwolfe@ci.benicia.ca.us. Any comment submitted to the City Clerk should indicate to which item of the agenda the comment relates. (THE PROPOSED REVISIONS ARE IN AGENDA ITEM 22.C – OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (City Attorney’s Office).)
– Comments received by 2:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be electronically forwarded to the City Council and posted on the City’s website.
– Comments received after 2:00 pm, but before the start time of the meeting will be electronically forwarded to the City Council but will not be posted on the City’s website.
In your email, put the item number in your subject line (e.g., “Public comment re. Item 22.C”).
In your email body, share why you support or oppose the changes.
How to view the meeting and/or make a live public comment
You can participate in the meeting in one of four ways:
1) Attend in person at Council Chambers
2) Cable T.V. Broadcast – Check with your cable provider for your local government broadcast channel.
3) Livestream online at www.ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas
4) Zoom Meeting (link below)
Use participant option to “raise hand” during the public comment period for the item you wish to speak on. Please note, your electronic device must have microphone capability. Once unmuted, you will have up to 5 minutes to speak.
Dial in with phone:
Before the start of the item you wish to comment on, call any of the numbers below. If one is busy, try the next one.
1 669 900 9128
1 346 248 7799
1 253 215 8782
1 646 558 8656
1 301 715 8592
1 312 626 6799
• Enter the meeting ID number: 885 0804 7557(*please note this is an updated ID number*.)
Say the item you wish to speak on. (AGAIN, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE IN ITEM 22.C.)
Once unmuted, you will have up to 5 minutes to speak.
Enter password: 449303
When prompted for a Participant ID, press #.
Press *9 on your phone to “raise your hand” when the Mayor calls for public comment.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email City Clerk Lisa Wolfe at lwolfe@ci.benicia.ca.us, who will use her best efforts to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety.
Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land
By Stephen Golub, originally published in the Benicia Herald on May 5, 2024
In recent weeks, I’ve reached out to a number of persons familiar with the Contra Costa County (CCC) and Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinances (ISOs), which seek to bolster those localities’ protection from fires, explosions and toxic emissions at the four refineries in that county.
Since it is situated in Solano County and not Contra Costa, Valero is the only Bay Area refinery not covered by such an ordinance. Benicia is the only refinery town in the area not protected by one. To their great credit, Vice Mayor Scott, Councilwoman Birdseye, Fire Chief Chadwick and other personnel are spearheading the City’s drive, unanimously endorsed by the City Council, to draft an ISO for Benicia. The Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance citizens’ group, to which I belong, is seeking to make the resulting law as strong as possible.
My look at other Bay Area ISOs is intended to bolster both of those efforts.
For now, I’ll focus on three key overlapping considerations that, in my opinion, have so far emerged from my ISO conversations:
My first point regards the crucial citizen Oversight Committee (or whatever name is eventually used) that, as part of the ISO, will keep its administration and enforcement on track. The Committee should comprise independent operational, scientific, environmental, safety and health experts, as well as representatives from affected communities within Benicia and beyond.
I suggest this approach in contrast with simply involving all potential “stakeholders” with some sort of interest in the ISO, since persons employed by, affiliated with or aligned with Valero are unlikely to back strong oversight. Who sits at the table will determine what gets done.
More specifically, let’s involve people who have expertise regarding Valero and other refineries’ operations but who are not beholden to them, as demonstrated by their professional or community track records.
Let’s certainly engage Benicians who have been affected by the emissions, odors, vapors and even residues from the refinery’s repeated incidents and accidents.
Let’s also include non-Benicians, such as those representing citizen or government groups in CCC, Richmond, Martinez and other neighboring communities, as well as representatives of Bay Area environmental organizations.
This brings me to my second point, implied by the first:
The Oversight Committee should not include Valero. Nor should it involve the affiliated “Community Advisory Panel” (CAP), which very rarely involves the community in its meetings and which largely supports the refinery’s perspective. While individuals affiliated with these two entities may mean well, it is inappropriate for a company to influence the very body that oversees the safety and health aspects of its operations.
Let’s also bear in mind that when we’re talking about Valero decision-making, we’re talking not about our fine neighbors and friends who may be employees, but instead about a huge Texas-based corporation.
There is nothing wrong and much that is right with consultation with Valero and listening to its valid concerns. But there are plenty of opportunities to do so, outside of it having membership in the Oversight Committee.
Or to put the matter more simply: Benicia can’t have the fox guarding the henhouse.
To my simple mind, it’s self-evident that Valero should not oversee itself. After all, you wouldn’t want a neighbor who regularly violates local and national safety/health-oriented regulations controlling efforts to prevent those violations, would you? And that’s even assuming the neighbor is committed to proper community oversight, something that can’t be said of Valero in view of its apparently intense opposition to an ISO.
CAP has also demonstrated keen opposition to the very idea of an ISO, as indicated by its hostile reception when Scott and Birdseye attempted to engage it in a constructive way at one of its meetings. This has large ramifications for the Oversight Committee.
Again, why put the fox in charge of the henhouse?
Against this backdrop, it’s puzzling that the City’s “Engage Benicia” ISO outreach site and the community survey it includes feature CAP in several questions, even in terms of a potential ISO role. Perhaps this is due to the laudable even-handedness with which the City is approaching this effort, despite opposition from Valero and CAP. But in visiting the site (engagebenicia.com) and participating in its survey, which I heartily encourage, Benicians should be aware that there’s less to CAP than its title implies.
My third point is that the Oversight Committee has a tremendous potential to connect Benicia with likeminded citizens and governments across the Bay Area regarding health and safety concerns. By virtue not just of its membership but also its outreach, it can share information, advocacy and efforts concerning common problems and solutions experienced by CCC, Richmond, Martinez and other areas. That’s yet another reason for the Committee to comprise independent individuals, rather than Valero or its affiliated parties.
In suggesting these paths, I speak only on my own behalf and not as a member of BISHO. If you’re interested in learning more about Valero’s violations and the many reasons the City and your fellow Benicians are working toward a strong ISO, please check out this site: bisho.org.
Join the BISHO movement
There is a group of concerned citizens of Benicia who also support the adoption of a Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance (BISHO). To learn more about the effort and add your support, visit www.bisho.org.
Subscribe to the Benicia Herald and keep local news alive!
The Benicia Herald does not have an online edition. To support our local newspaper, please subscribe by email at beniciacirculation@gmail.com or by phone at 707-745-6838.
[Note from BenIndy: For information on how to register your support or opposition to the changes described below, scroll to the end.]
BenIndy Editorial, Thursday, May 2, 2024
This Tuesday, May 7, at 6 pm, Benicia City Council will vote on revisions to the city’s campaign ordinances and public engagement policies that were proposed by council and city staff in late 2023.
While community members have supported some of the proposed changes, especially those that tighten loopholes in fair political practices, other proposed revisions – including some from city staff– have faced criticism for their potential to limit meaningful public engagement in governance.
Now, Benicia residents are calling on the community to write, call and show up to oppose to two revisions proposed by staff but not supported by Benicia’s Open Government Commission (OGC):
Amend the City’s Municipal Code to align with state law pertaining to the time to respond to public records act request; and
Decrease the amount of time public speakers may address a City public body in open session from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.
City Council requested Open Government Commission review in late 2023
Benicia’s Open Government Commission was created in 2005 to enhance openness, accountability, and public participation in local government after community complaints and external investigations exposed deficiencies in those areas. At the time, the charges laid against City Council included unreasonable delays or outright refusal to provide public records upon request, failures to appropriately notice the public on meeting content and scheduling, agenda misinformation, and more. By establishing the ordinance, the city sought to foster a stronger connection between government officials and residents, promoting a more informed and engaged community.
Prompted by growing concerns about fairness, false statements and digital image manipulation in local elections, City Council tasked the OGC in late 2023 to review and develop recommendations for providing Benicia’s political landscape with guardrails to defend against such misleading tactics. The OGC was also charged to consider several changes proposed by city staff, including updating public records requests and public comment policies to reduce strain on staff.
Some changes to fair political practices code in Benicia elections
After deliberations were stalled several months by quorum and staffing issues, the OGC opted to introduce a few of its recommendations through suggested updates to Benicia’s Voluntary Code of Fair Campaign Practices.
The OGC’s first recommendation to address false and manipulated media via the Voluntary Code would simply align Benicia with California state law, and not much more, but the impulse was welcomed by some city residents.
However, the OGC did not address important questions about enforcement functionality or meaningful remedy for violations, instead punting the responsibility back to the City Clerk, who could immediately inform any candidate and/or political action committee (PAC) about complaints and post said complaint(s) and any rebuttal(s) on the City’s website.
An example of a 2020 campaign ad that some residents claim includes digitally manipulated images and misleading statements.
Additionally, although the OGC discussed how to make campaign regulations in Benicia more “objective” and enforceable, the commission asserted that the complexity of navigating First Amendment privileges or procuring third-party fact-checking services was beyond its scope.
Finally, the OGC considered whether to maintain or discontinue its mandated Candidate Forum before local elections, ultimately voting to keep the forum but adjusting which day it may fall on during the week.
Concerns about public access to information
Benicia city staff also had an opportunity to suggest changes to Benicia’s open government regulations through the OGC’s review process. These revisions were met with more pushback from the OGC than City Council’s requests.
To boost public participation, city staff proposed refining a rule that allows a presiding officer at public meetings to request groups with similar views to appoint a spokesperson and adjust their speaking times for efficiency. However, the OGC suggested that for items with many speakers, a presiding officer should simply encourage groups to appoint a spokesperson by referencing the relevant section of the ordinance.
Staff also requested Benicia’s deadline for response to public records requests be adjusted to the state-mandated 10-day requirement instead of the current 3-day or 5-day requirement, depending on the type of records sought. The OGC concurred with city staff’s suggestion, recommending that the city’s response time to public records act be changed to 10 days.
However, some Benicia residents disagree with extending the deadline.
“Rapid response to public information request is essential for local democracy, because local government operates faster than county or state,” one Benicia resident pointed out. “If Benicia City Council meets twice a month and a decision is dependent on a public records request, responsive documents should be available to the public as quickly as possible so decision makers can meet important deadlines, if necessary. Ten days doesn’t allow for that.”
Public speaking time under threat, confusion about recommendations
Perhaps most controversially, city staff has pushed for a reduction in public comment speaking time at meetings from 5 minutes to 3, claiming it would make meetings more efficient and likely increase public participation. The OGC declined to recommend city staff’s proposed speaking time reduction, citing public pushback and no compelling evidence that shorter speaking times could improve meeting outcomes.
“Cutting the public’s time to be heard by a whopping 40%, especially without any data backing that decision, is a bad look,” one resident said, commending the OGC for not recommending the cutback. “Benicia should consider itself lucky to have engaged citizens, not be looking for ways to get them to pipe down.”
But despite the OGC explicitly declining to change the speaking time limits, the recommendation from city staff still appears in the City Council meeting packet for May 7 under the headline, “OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (City Attorney’s Office),” causing confusion about which recommendations are coming from city staff and which are coming from the OGC, causing opponents to the change to cry foul.
Residents complained that the relevant agenda item, titled “OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL,” does not clearly and explicitly indicate which recommendations are from staff and which are not in the final presentation of proposed revisions.
“It needs to be clearer,” a resident said. “The way it is written, it is very unclear who is recommending what, and why, and I find that very troubling in an already very complicated discussion about open government.”
Benicia resident Mike Caplan announced the opening of the Benicia Farmer’s Market at the April 16 City Council meeting, leaving the podium after speaking for 40 seconds. Some Benicia residents say the city would be wrong to limit speaking time, especially when most speakers don’t use the full 5 minutes. | Still from April 16, 2024 Benicia City meeting recording.
Open government norms in review
Although the OGC’s proposed revisions to Benicia’s Voluntary Code of Fair Campaign Practices are fine and welcome, the commission fell short of not just devising, but also envisioning a better system to fend off repeat offenders who use misleading or otherwise unfair campaign tactics to exercise outsized influence in our small town elections. Some cities work with their open government commissions to produce mailers and email blasts warning voters of deceptive campaign practices, for just one example of an effective city commission–led response to unfair campaign practices.
Meanwhile, City Council’s decisions on these recommendations this Tuesday will be another signal of how City Council will balance which burdens on city staff are necessary for open, local governance, and which can be dropped to save resources. What shakes out of this meeting will, in essence, show us how City Council will weigh the necessity of economy (Benicia is, after all, experiencing a budget crisis) against the necessity of providing services, including meaningful public participation opportunities, to its community.
This meeting therefore merits careful watching, and perhaps active participation, on the part of Benicia citizens. More information about how to support or oppose these changes is below.
Call to action
The full list of what appear to be staff recommendations under the OGC banner is below and available here:
This document is titled “OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL,” but several of the recommendations in this list do not reflect OGC direction. | From page 9 of the City of Benicia Full Agenda Packet for May 7 meeting.
Benicia activists are asking the community to call, write or show up on Tuesday to oppose changes to:
(2) Amend the City’s Municipal Code to align with state law pertaining to the time to respond to public records act request; and (3) Decrease the amount of time public speakers may address a City public body in open session form 5 minutes to 3 minutes.
If you care about public participation in Benicia one way or the other, there are several ways to get involved, and most of them are quick and easy. Learn more below.
How to write and email a public comment
If you would like to make your opinion on the topic of the proposed revisions known to City Council, members of the public may provide public comment via email to the City Clerk by email at lwolfe@ci.benicia.ca.us. Any comment submitted to the City Clerk should indicate to which item of the agenda the comment relates. (THE PROPOSED REVISIONS ARE IN AGENDA ITEM 22.C – OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (City Attorney’s Office).)
– Comments received by 2:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be electronically forwarded to the City Council and posted on the City’s website.
– Comments received after 2:00 pm, but before the start time of the meeting will be electronically forwarded to the City Council but will not be posted on the City’s website.
In your email, put the item number in your subject line (e.g., “Public comment re. Item 22.C”).
In your email body, share why you support or oppose the changes.
How to view the meeting and/or make a live public comment
You can participate in the meeting in one of four ways:
1) Attend in person at Council Chambers
2) Cable T.V. Broadcast – Check with your cable provider for your local government broadcast channel.
3) Livestream online at www.ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas
4) Zoom Meeting (link below)
Use participant option to “raise hand” during the public comment period for the item you wish to speak on. Please note, your electronic device must have microphone capability. Once unmuted, you will have up to 5 minutes to speak.
Dial in with phone:
Before the start of the item you wish to comment on, call any of the numbers below. If one is busy, try the next one.
1 669 900 9128
1 346 248 7799
1 253 215 8782
1 646 558 8656
1 301 715 8592
1 312 626 6799
• Enter the meeting ID number: 885 0804 7557(*please note this is an updated ID number*.)
Say the item you wish to speak on. (AGAIN, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE IN ITEM 22.C.)
Once unmuted, you will have up to 5 minutes to speak.
Enter password: 449303
When prompted for a Participant ID, press #.
Press *9 on your phone to “raise your hand” when the Mayor calls for public comment.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email City Clerk Lisa Wolfe at lwolfe@ci.benicia.ca.us, who will use her best efforts to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety.
You must be logged in to post a comment.