Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 27 2026 - Item 8.12 - Georgine Scott-Codiga1 Stefan Mercer To:Stefan Mercer Subject:RE: EXTERNAL - Request to Remove Item 8.12 from the Consent Calendar — July 27, 2026 Regular Meeting From: Americans For Non-Profit Transparency <AFNPT@proton.me> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 12:52 PM To: Kim Mancera <Kim.Mancera@cityofgilroy.org>; cclerk@cityofgilroy.org Subject: EXTERNAL - Request to Remove Item 8.12 from the Consent Calendar — July 27, 2026 Regular Meeting AMERICANS FOR TRANSPARENCY Georgine Scott-Codiga, Founder | AFNPT@proton.me July 21, 2026 Kim Mancera, City Clerk City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 CC: Mayor Greg Bozzo and Members of the Gilroy City Council Re: Request to Remove Item 8.12 from the Consent Calendar — July 27, 2026 Regular Meeting Dear Ms. Mancera: Americans for Transparency respectfully requests that Item 8.12, "Approval of Policy on Public Comment and Meeting Decorum During City Council Meetings," be removed from the Consent Calendar for the July 27, 2026 Regular Meeting and considered separately, with discussion. This item establishes a standing citywide policy governing public participation rights at all future Council meetings. Given its scope and its potential application to sensitive, high-attendance items — including matters related to the Gilroy Data Center — we believe it warrants individual discussion rather than approval by omnibus motion. We raise the following specific concerns: 1. Citation Error, Section 7.1(e). The draft policy authorizes the Mayor to clear the meeting room during a willful disruption "in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9." Section 54956.9 governs closed-session conference with legal counsel regarding pending litigation; it does not address the clearing of a meeting room during a disruption. We believe the intended citation is Government Code Section 54957.9. We request this be corrected before adoption. 2. Overbreadth, Section 6.4. Section 6.4 prohibits "applause, booing, chanting, shouting, or loud collective responses" during Council meetings, without express reference to the "actually disrupts the orderly conduct of the meeting" standard applied elsewhere in the same policy (Section 5.3). Audience reaction alone — absent conduct that substantially and actually impairs the Council's ability to conduct business — is generally treated as protected activity at public meetings. We request that the Council clarify, on the record, that Section 6.4 will be enforced only CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 against conduct meeting the actual-disruption standard, consistent with Section 5.3, and not against audience reaction as such. 3. Selective Application — Question for the Record. The record establishes a pattern, not an isolated instance. At the June 15, 2026 Regular Meeting, before opening public comment on Item 3.2 — where the overwhelming majority of the 24 registered speakers rose to oppose the Amazon Data Center — Mayor Bozzo instructed the audience there would be no clapping, adding that this same instruction had already been given "a couple weeks" earlier. No comparable instruction was given, or has been recorded as given, during Council business the public supports or that Council itself favors, including the Youth Commission appointments earlier that same meeting. The effect, whether intended or not, is a decorum standard invoked selectively at the moment residents gather to voice opposition to a Council-favored project, and not otherwise. Section 6.4 of Item 8.12 would take this informal, selectively-applied practice and convert it into permanent written policy — applicable citywide, at every future meeting, on every future agenda item. Before that occurs, the public is entitled to know whether this policy reflects an even-handed decorum standard or a mechanism developed, consciously or not, in response to organized opposition on a specific matter. We ask the Council to state on the record, prior to adoption of Item 8.12: a. Whether Section 6.4 was drafted, discussed, or motivated in any part by public reaction to Council discussions of the Amazon Data Center or related land use matters; b. Whether Section 6.4 is intended to apply uniformly to all agenda items regardless of subject matter or the popularity of the Council's position; and c. Whether the Mayor or any Councilmember intends to apply Section 6.4, once adopted, to public comment on data center matters specifically. 4. Discretion Standard, Section 7.2. Section 7.2 permits removal without prior warning where conduct "substantially disrupts" the meeting, a term left undefined. We request the Council confirm that this discretion will be applied on a content- and viewpoint-neutral basis, consistent with Section 7.3. We respectfully request that these items be clarified on the record before adoption, or that the item be continued to allow for revision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Georgine Scott-Codiga Founder, Americans for Transparency AFNPT@proton.me GSC for AFT Sent with Proton Mail secure email.