At the previous council meeting, Councilmember Dr. Ahmad Zahra agendized reevaluating the placement of public comment. City staff explained that California’s Brown Act requires legislative bodies to allow public comment on any matter within their jurisdiction and on agenda items before votes. Still, it does not specify where on the agenda public comments should be placed.

Historically, the council’s own rules allowed 30 minutes of non-agenda public comment at the beginning of meetings. However, Mayor Jung has often overlooked this guideline and placed the public comments at the end. Several residents voiced concerns about the placement of public comment, with Yolanda Harrison, a Rancho La Paz resident, arguing that moving comments to the end discourages participation. “Public comment is not a reward at the end of the meeting,” she said, noting that council members leave during comments, which seems so dismissive.

Elijah Manassero suggested that changing the default position of public comment would not eliminate flexibility, but instead require a council vote and public explanation for any adjustments. Curtis Gamble, an advocate for various community groups, echoed that sentiment, insisting that the public’s voice should be prioritized.

Dr. Ahmad Zahra proposed an amendment to place public comment and council reports at the beginning of meetings, allowing council members to agendize items on the public’s behalf or answer questions, saying this would promote fairness and consistency. He highlighted instances where residents sat through extended meetings only to speak briefly, arguing that public input should be heard early to improve engagement.

In contrast, Dunlap defended the current system, asserting that the chair should retain discretion to manage the meeting’s flow, particularly during lengthy discussions on significant agenda items. He claimed that public comment has typically begun at the start of meetings 90% of the time.

Charles supported Zahra’s proposal, emphasizing that the public deserves a role in determining when they can voice their opinions and concerns. She argued that requiring a majority of council members to override a chair’s decision could create tension.

Mayor Jung suggested that the public submit comments by email and on Zoom. I interrupted to challenge the mayor’s commitment to reading emailed comments, which are part of the public record. These comments are hard to find, and the council’s responses are not part of the public record. The city clerk, Lucinda Williams, acknowledged that alternatives such as email and Zoom comments are available. However, these alternatives lack the immediacy and impact of in-person testimony.

The debate over public comment scheduling reflects broader tensions around transparency and accessibility in the council’s decision-making process.

The Fullerton City Council voted 3-2 on October 20 to keep public comment at the mayor’s discretion, rather than permanently keeping it at the beginning as some residents requested. Mayor Fred Jung, Mayor Pro Tem Nick Dunlap, and Council Member Jamie Valencia supported receiving and filing a staff report on the issue. At the same time, Council Members Dr. Shana Charles and Dr. Ahmad Zahra voted against it.