The former mayor of El Cerrito, Tessa Rudnick, made the controversial decision to suspend remote public commentary during council meetings, citing concerns over antisemitic remarks. However, this reasoning serves as a red herring—masking the true impact of silencing community voices, particularly those who cannot attend in person.
Remote participation provided an essential platform for residents with dissenting opinions—opinions that city leadership has historically struggled to embrace. By removing this option, the council and city manager have effectively limited public discourse, making it harder for concerned citizens to hold them accountable.
El Cerrito thrives when all voices are heard, not just those who align with leadership. It’s time to bring back remote public commentary and ensure transparency, accessibility, and a government that truly serves its people.
📩 Take Action: Email the City Clerk and demand the return of remote public comment.
📧 City Clerk: cityclerk@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
📢 Contact City Council Members:
• Mayor Carolyn Wysinger: cwysinger@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Mayor Pro Tem Gabe Quinto: gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember Lisa Motoyama: lmotoyama@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember William Ktsanes: wktsanes@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
• Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman: rsaltzman@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Use Your Voice! Let them know that accessibility and accountability matter.
#ElCerrito #TransparencyMatters #LetUsSpeak #CivicEngagement #PublicComment #LocalGovernment #CommunityVoice #OpenGovernment #AccessibilityForAll #HoldThemAccountable
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 
It’s certainly time to discuss reviving remote public comments to EC City Council meetings, but it’s misleading to characterize the decision as resulting from “concerns over anti-Semitic remarks.”
As was widely covered in local news, during the same period three other Bay Area cities (Berkeley, San Pablo and Walnut Creek) also had city council meetings deliberately disrupted when non-resident zoom bombers used remote public comments to deliver anti-Semitic and white supremacist tirades. In self defense, all four cities suspended remote public comments so that they could carry out city business. No red herrings were involved.
I just checked online: Berkeley has resumed remote public comments, San Pablo has not but calls the situation “temporary,” and Walnut Creek and El Cerrito have not revived the option. When it comes to responding to the zoom bombers, EC seems to be well within the transparency mainstream. That doesn’t mean the city shouldn’t reassess whether it still makes sense to sacrifice this valuable avenue of public input and participation, but let’s not forget the context.
If memory serves, several North Bay cities got zoom bombed at about the same time. I’d be interested to know how they dealt with the attacks. Maybe there’s something to be learned from their experience as well.
LikeLike
We could agree with you except that advisory board and committee meetings are no longer taped. Also financial matters are presented at the end and sound quality diminishes remotely as well. Go back and listen to the tape.
LikeLike
What does you “could agree with me” even mean? I’m either correct about what I relayed or I’m not. “Going back to listen to the tape” won’t change that
I support your overall push for greater transparency, but throwing in additional problems doesn’t change the fact that the lack of context makes this post misleading. It would be more helpful to share why the blog decided not to include the precipitating factor that led to ending remote public comments. It’s ironic that I’m raising a transparency issue about the omission of zoom bombing in a blog post calling for greater transparency.
The blog is strongest when it refrains from overreaching to make its valid points, but it seems to be happening more often. I’m not a fan of that approach, especially when there’s so much at stake for our town.
LikeLike
Your post does acknowledge why the restriction was put in place, but there has been no discussion about allowing public comment via Zoom. Those comments were made in the fall of 2023—it’s time to revisit the issue. Could agree means that your concerns are being taken seriously. Also, not however – the city has not been transparent on many other fronts, and the inability to participate remotely continues to impact residents with mobility challenges, small children, and other constraints.
LikeLike
My post acknowledges why restrictions were put in place; yours does not. If my concerns were being taken seriously, they would be spoken to directly instead of being deflected.
Sheesh, talk about going around in circles. Did you notice that the very first sentence in my original response affirms that it’s time to revisit the issue? I’m exiting the merry go round and taking this exchange as confirmation of the importance of reading your blog with a grain of salt.
LikeLike
Texting isn’t a great means to communicate particularly with different perspectives. We appreciate your comments and agree to exit the merry-go-round. Have an amazing day. Thank you again for your feedback.
LikeLike