City Council votes to reduce public comment time

Armando Herman speaks at a Downey City Council meeting. Photo by Alex Dominguez

DOWNEY — The Downey City Council on Tuesday voted to decrease public comment time by two minutes.

Council meeting attendees will now have three minutes to speak during non-agenda, consent calendar, public hearings, and administrative report periods each, as opposed to the five minutes speakers were previously allotted.

This is the second change to occur to Downey’s public comment policy in less than a year, as the council decided last year to give all speakers one opportunity to speak for the entire consent agenda, as opposed to each item that may be pulled for discussion.

The changes are widely believed to be in direct reaction to Armando Herman, whose rants during council meetings are often profane and include racial and homophobic slurs.

This behavior was no different on Tuesday, with Herman antagonizing and butting heads with both Mayor Blanca Pacheco and City Attorney Yvette M. Abich Garcia multiple times throughout the night, resulting in several warnings but no ejections.

There were a handful of people in attendance Tuesday who spoke against the time cut, describing it as a “slippery slope” and insinuating that it was an infringement on First Amendment rights and freedom of speech.

Herman’s role in the issue is not commonly spoken about candidly or openly by members of the council, especially while in a meeting setting.

However, that changed when Councilmember Sean Ashton – who ultimately voted in opposition of the change – addressed Herman from his seat, suggesting that Herman “abused” his right to speak.

“I’m okay with people coming here and talking; I want to hear it because I don’t know everything…I think having these moments help,” said Ashton. “I feel bad because we have one person abusing that privilege to waste time.”

“You are wasting our time. When you came the first couple of years, you spoke on ADA issues Mr. Herman… You’ve moved on from that to just kind of using this time to abuse our system, and just to use whatever time you have to say whatever racist, or politically motivated, whatever things that incite people to hate you or to hate us. This is where I think this is all coming from.” 

Armando Herman is known for using expletives and offensive language in his public remarks at city council meetings. Photo by Alex Dominguez

Councilman Alex Saab, who also voted against the time reduction, said he needed to “veer on the side of giving residents more time, than less,” and in response to Ashton’s comments, warned against “bending over 113,00 residents for one person.”

“As painful as it is sometimes to hear certain people say certain things that we all cringe, the fact is we have to balance the right of the residents’ right to free speech versus efficiency,” said Saab. “I don’t think that limiting or reducing the time is going to make that much difference in efficiency.

“I think what’s happening is those who support it may be thinking – and understandably so, at times – thinking that this is going to change the type or content of the speech, when in fact it’s going to make no difference.”

Mayor Pacheco, Mayor Pro Tem Claudia Frometa, and Councilman Rick Rodriguez all voted in favor of reducing public comment time.

Frometa disagreed that the council would be encroaching on residents’ right to speak.

“I don’t think we are limiting [residents]; I think we are being reasonable in our approach,” said Frometa. “I think that we continue to support freedom of speech, and we want to continue to serve our residents by inviting them to be a part of the process.”

Frometa added that the council could allot more time to a speaker if needed.

“It is at the discretion of the council. We can give more time depending on the item,” said Frometa. “We have that liberty.”

“A lot of the people that come here, and they have to sit for two and a half to three hours, and 45 minutes of it is one individual ranting about issues that have absolutely no business being discussed in this council chamber end up having to walk away because they don’t want to have to listen to all of those inflammatory words that are offensive…I think three minutes is reasonable. We are conducting the peoples’ business.”

Pacheco agreed that the council would not be limiting freedom of speech, noting other surrounding cities that allot three minutes, and that if needed she would be available for further discussion.

“I do appreciate all the comments,” said Pacheco. “I do know that if we need to allow you to have more time, you will be allowed to have more time if necessary. But I believe that three minutes is more than sufficient time to get your point across, and if we need to continue the dialogue afterwards, we can continue the dialogue afterwards.”

“I always have an open-door policy. I’m here at City Hall; my office is on the third floor. So, I always invite people to visit me… we don’t want issues to be brought up only during council meetings…”

Councilman Saab issued a statement after the meeting.

“I am very disappointed that the public’s right to speak at City Council meetings was reduced by 40 percent,” he said. “I don’t believe it is good practice to shape public policy around one gadfly’s behavior at the cost of the remaining 113,000 other residents.

“Whenever we are asked to consider and balance efficiency versus the public’s right to speak, I will always stand on the side of the First Amendment and the public’s right to speak. This will not change the content or the words that are spoken, but will simply reduce the sacred right under the First Amendment.

“As elected officials, we signed on the dotted line and agreed to sit there and listen to the residents attentively, even if we disagree with what they are saying or how they are saying it. Democracy comes at a cost, even if it means having to listen a few extra minutes from individuals we may not agree with.”