DOWNEY — Discussions to create an ad hoc committee on targeted residential picketing failed to gain traction on Tuesday, instead unveiling a divide between councilmembers on how to address aggressive protesting tactics.

This was just the newest chapter in a continuous saga between the council and a group of vocal opposition, which has butted up against the city’s leadership since late last year.

Despite COVID-19 forcing public meetings to be physically closed to the public, the situation has escalated further in recent weeks, with picketers taking to council member’s own private homes, as recently as Tuesday night..

According to City Attorney Yvette Abich Garcia, the creation of an ad hoc was floated to give an opportunity to research the issue and potentially bring it back to the table with recommendations on action.

However, the item found itself on shaky legs from the word go at Tuesday’s meeting.

It became clear where Councilman Alex Saab stood on the matter quickly, as he questioned how the item came to be on the agenda in the first place, to which no council member immediately laid claim to.

Regardless, Saab – a lawyer by profession – drew a line in the sand, using the First Amendment as the base of his argument. 

“This is absolutely against the fundamental basic tenet of what we learned the first day in law school, the basic constitutional rights,” said Saab. “This issue has been litigated for decades in our country, we’re not about to create this issue that in an instant will face a lawsuit and cost the city probably hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“I voted against reducing the time from five minutes to three minutes for this very reason, and this is, the way I see it, the same thing. I agree with my council colleagues, sure there’s a time and place, but I certainly – or anybody else who is elected – should not have the authority to regulate speech that is not violent.”

Councilman Sean Ashton said, “it is what it is.”

“We decided to [run for office],” said Ashton. “It might not be the most preferential way to deal with constituents, but unfortunately it is something that has come about this day of age.

“As much as I don’t agree with how they’re doing it, I still have to understand the fact that this is going to cause a lot of issues in the long run if we go forward with this, and I’m not comfortable supporting that at this time.”

Mayor Blanca Pacheco and Mayor Pro Tem Claudia Frometa seemingly being the most fed up of the group – expressed concerns for their neighbors and families.

Pacheco said that she had an issue with the protesters’ method, not the message. 

“I did bring up this item to our city manager,” said Pacheco. “My concerns are my neighbors who are frustrated because I’ve been targeted three times; one at 10 pm, one at 3 pm, and the most recent one at 7:30 pm.

“I received a lot of complaints from my neighbors because the people that came to protest, they used amplifying devices, disrupted my neighbors, used vulgar language, and my neighbors were concerned that there were children in many of these homes, and they didn’t want to deal with this.”

Frometa added that the First Amendment emphasizes peaceful assembly, and that by coming to council members’ homes as they had with “loud speakers,” picketers had disrupted the peace of the neighborhood.

“First Amendment protects your right to free speech, but right here it also says, ‘people peaceably to assemble,’” said Frometa. “You have every right to ask the government, to petition your government for a redress of grievances, absolutely… but when you infringe upon the peace of those neighborhoods in which we live, we have chosen to run for office because we care about the community…but my neighbors, and our children did not sign up for this. 

“They can protest and exercise their First Amendment right all they want, but I’m gonna tell you something: Do not expect when you show up to my house at 8 or 9 o’clock at night with those loud speakers demanding, accusing, that I am going to come out and dialogue with you. Absolutely not.”

Three men armed with bullhorns and a sign reading “Censorship is a crime” stood outside protesting for the entirety of the meeting.