No more War and Peace in council packets

When Gilroy City Council member Perry Woodward picked up the Feb. 24 agenda packet, he noticed roughly 42 percent of the packet was—instead of staff reports and material relating to what council was making decisions on—written public comment sent in by a vocal citizen, Joseph Thompson.
For that meeting, Thompson submitted 129 pages of the 309-page packet centered on criticism of statewide transportation policy.
Woodward said he’s had enough.
“I thought that was too much. It’s time to bring this under control,” Woodward said. “Up until now, you could submit War and Peace if you wanted to and the City would pay to replicate it.”
Woodward introduced the proposed restriction, currently in the draft form, that would put a 10-page cap on the amount of material members of the public can submit–specifically public comment on items not on the agenda–for inclusion in the hard copy of the packet.
So far this year, Thompson—a practicing attorney who describes himself as a “pro bono pain in the backside”—has submitted a total of 348 pages to the city council to be included in the packet and, at a cost of 25 cents per page, the city has spent roughly $783 making physical copies of Thompson’s material, based on an estimate from the City Clerk’s Office. That cost estimate includes the costs of paper, copier and ink as well as staff time, City Clerk Shawna Freels said in an email.
Council packets are physically copied nine times for distribution to council members, staff and others, Freels added.
“The kind (of packets) we’re getting are packets like this,” Mayor Don Gage said, motioning with his hands to demonstrate the size of the packets that include Thompson’s writing. “It costs us a lot of money to just end up throwing them away.”
Over the past four years, Thompson has been-with few exceptions-the only citizen to submit pages upon pages of written public comment, Woodward noted.
But rather than allowing the city to continue footing the bill to duplicate material submitted by members of the public, City Attorney Linda Callon explained that those who wish to have written material included as part of the public record–in excess of 10 pages–can do so at their own personal expense and pass them out to the council.
“Those who like to submit long, voluminous tomes can do that by email,” Woodward said, adding there is no restriction whatsoever on emailed content.
“I’ll follow their rules,” Thompson said over the phone Wednesday. “But this is chump change considering some of the city’s costs. If that (publishing public comment) causes a cost for the city, it’s well worth it. All avenues should remain open.”
A phone call to Thompson requesting comment on the legislation in the works stretched into nearly an hour-long discussion, wandering from the finances of the California High Speed Rail system to the “illegitimate” Valley Transporation Authority. He also emphasizes the importance of newspapers, governmental transparency, accountability and public participation in the political process—and his disappointment that he’s usually the only citizen to submit written materials to council.
Thompson said he’s curious if the council’s opposition to public participation is a clue they’re protecting special interests.
“They don’t want anyone to rock their boats,” he said.
But, according to Woodward—a practicing real estate attorney—the proposed restriction has nothing to do with the content of Thompson’s writings.
“We’ve got work to do and those copies are being made at public expense,” he said. “I think it’s appropriate to reign that in.”
Woodward and Thompson are both friends who have a mutual respect for each other; they even get together for lunch every once in a while.
“(Thompson) does have some fringe views on transportation issues but they’re well informed views,” Woodward said. “I’m not throwing him under the bus (with the limitation) because that would make my next lunch with him awkward.”
Political speech, the category of speech Thompson’s written material falls into, is fully protected by the First Amendment.
“You can’t regulate it based on content,” Woodward said. “What we can do is limit the time, place and manner in which that speech can occur.”
City Council’s proposed rule is less restrictive than it could have been.
“I think the city council would be within its rights to say we can no longer allow public comment in writing,” Woodward said.
The council voted 6-0, with Councilman Peter Arellano absent, to give staff direction to prepare a draft of the ordinance.
“You’ll just have to take more time to write less, Joe,” Woodward said.
Written public comment sent in by Gilroy resident Joseph Thompson in 2014:
Jan. 6: 56 pages
Jan. 27: 28 pages
Feb. 3: 11 pages
Feb. 24: 129 pages
March 17: 109 pages
April 7: 15 pages
Total: 348 pages