Newly elected District 4 councilmember Jamie Valencia made a motion to reduce the time allotted for each public commentator to speak at the start of city council meetings from three to two minutes. The motion was seconded by Mayor Fred Jung at the city council meeting held on January 7. Valencia claimed the change was needed to promote more “efficient conversation” and improve the “flow of the meeting,” but public speakers at the meeting disagreed.

Councilmember Dr. Ahmad Zahra asked if the motion included public comments on both adgendized and non-agendized items.

Valencia confirmed that she wanted to reduce the public’s time to address issues at the beginning of city council meetings, saying, “My motion is to reduce the public comments in the beginning from three minutes to two minutes.”

Zahra countered the motion, expressing concerns about public satisfaction if the proposal were to pass. He said, “We should let the public speak on this because I’m not sure they’ll be happy with this one.”

Kurt Johnston pointed out that shorter remarks are easier to remember and that the best ideas often arise early in the discussion. In his view, two minutes is adequate for a strong argument regarding non-agenda topics.

Todd Harrison strongly opposed the motion, citing the complexity of many issues that require more than two minutes for adequate discussion. “We should keep the three-minute limit, especially for non-agenda items,” he insisted, sharing past experiences where the three-minute rule was vital.

Community member Helen Higgins argued for preserving the three minutes, suggesting that the mayor has the authority to shorten comment times when necessary without imposing a blanket reduction.

Diane Vena echoed these sentiments, arguing that non-agenda items can be significant, particularly for those who may be nervous about public speaking.

Zee, a long-time resident, expressed strong opposition to reducing the allotted speaking time. Zee argued that such a move reflects authoritarian tactics: “So why don’t we shorten the speaking time to a minute and a half? Every tyrant tries to silence public comment. What do they want? To shut everyone up? Why have council meetings at all? Why not let the three of you run the county however you want? Forget about the other two votes; just do as you please. Why even allow the public to come here? Just lock the doors.”

Curtis Gamble, an activist advocating for marginalized communities, spoke out against the motion, emphasizing that three minutes is crucial for individuals with urgent concerns, including the 300 homeless individuals in Fullerton. He highlighted that just because some people may not step forward to speak does not mean they lack interest in the issues being discussed.

Jensen Hallstrom raised further concerns about the lack of context behind the motion, criticizing the decision as disconnected from community needs. He urged Council Member Valencia to clarify her rationale for the proposal.

Maureen Milton raised concerns about a proposal to reduce the speaking time. She pointed out that many individuals find it challenging to express themselves, especially if they speak infrequently. While she acknowledged the need for limits when there are a large number of speakers, she argued that maintaining a three-minute limit is fairer for smaller groups. She emphasized the importance of allowing everyone the opportunity to fully articulate their thoughts.

Valencia thanked everyone for their comments and expressed appreciation for their input. She emphasized the importance of public comments at committee meetings and encouraged everyone to share their thoughts on committees such as Infrastructure, Parks and Recreation, and the Library, as well as other committees that are open to public input. Valencia highlighted that these comments could also be heard by the council, providing ample opportunities for public engagement throughout the city.

Mayor Fred Jung noted that the rules of procedure and decorum for City Council meetings are reviewed annually. He emphasized that these rules are not fixed and may change over time. He also asked the City Clerk if she could recall any City Council meeting that allowed for a five-minute comment session.

City Clerk Lucinda Williams stated that the five-minute comment period was historically reserved for public hearings in the past.

Jung continued, expressing openness to trying out new procedures for a year, but added that he did not see this as something radically different.

Councilmember  Zahra, the council’s most senior member, reflected on a time when the public was allowed five minutes to speak. He lamented that both the reduction to three minutes, along with the rescheduling of meetings to earlier hours, has led to decreased public attendance. Zahra argued that these changes, originally intended as temporary measures, have become permanent, making it difficult for many residents who are still traveling home from work or attending to family duties at 5:30 pm to participate. He called the proposed reduction of speaking time disrespectful, asserting that not everyone can express their thoughts concisely and that public participation is essential for a healthy democracy.

Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Shana Charles shared her recent experience at a council meeting where she proposed reducing the speaking time from three minutes to two minutes to accommodate a council member’s [Zahra’s] flight schedule. This proposal faced significant backlash from attendees, prompting her to ultimately vote against it after considering public feedback [as did Zahra]. Dr. Charles reaffirmed her commitment to community engagement and expressed her support for maintaining the traditional three-minute speaking limit, which she believes is important to Fullerton residents.

Council member Dunlap echoed this sentiment, stating, “Three minutes is sensible. I think it gives people enough time to articulate their thoughts.” He expressed confidence in the council’s ability to conduct efficient meetings without diminishing the voices of the public. Dunlap’s motion to retain the three-minute speaking limit ultimately passed with a 3 to 2 vote, with Jung and Valencia opposing the decision.

The debate surrounding public speaking time at city council meetings highlighted the ongoing conversation about civic engagement and the balance between efficiency and accessibility in local governance.