At the most recent El Cerrito City Council meeting, the City Clerk clearly stated the rules governing public comment:
• Items not on the agenda are to be addressed at the beginning of the meeting during general public comment
• Agenda items are to be discussed only when they appear on the agenda
These rules are routinely stated, well understood by regular attendees, and typically enforced with precision—especially when speakers express views that challenge or oppose City-supported initiatives.
That’s why what occurred at the last meeting deserves attention.
Selective Enforcement in Plain View
Despite the clearly stated rules, the City allowed pro-library speakers to speak:
- At the beginning of the meeting, during general public comment (when the library item was not yet on the agenda)
- Again, in item 8B, when the Library formally appeared on the agenda
This resulted in certain speakers being permitted to comment twice on the same issue, once before the item appeared and again when it was officially up for discussion.
Residents with opposing views were not afforded the same latitude.
This was not a subtle procedural nuance. It directly conflicted with the rules the Clerk had just announced.
Unequal Enforcement of Time Limits
Equally concerning was the uneven enforcement of the three-minute speaking limit.
Several speakers supporting the library proposal were allowed to exceed their allotted time without interruption. Meanwhile, speakers expressing opposing or critical perspectives were cut off promptly and decisively at the three-minute mark, consistent with how the Clerk typically enforces the rules.
Time limits exist to ensure fairness. When they are enforced selectively, they stop being neutral safeguards and become tools of imbalance.
This Is About Process, Not Position
This is not an argument about the merits of the proposed library project. El Cerrito residents reasonably disagree about cost, location, scale, financing, and timing.
But none of that justifies the uneven application of public comment rules.
Public comment procedures exist to guarantee:
• Equal access to decision-makers
• Predictable and transparent meetings
• Fair treatment across viewpoints
• Public confidence in the process
When those procedures are bent for some speakers and rigidly enforced for others, the integrity of the process is compromised.
Residents Are Noticing
This concern is not isolated. It is shaped by multiple social media posts and community discussions from residents who attended or watched the meeting, many of whom independently noted the same inconsistencies in real time.
People noticed:
• Speakers commenting on an agenda item both before and during its agenda placement
• Speakers being allowed to speak twice on the same issue
• Uneven enforcement of time limits
• Disparate treatment based on viewpoint
These patterns do not go unnoticed—and they do not build trust.
Neutral Rules Require Neutral Enforcement
If the City wishes to revise its public comment practices—by allowing broader early comment, extended time, or multiple opportunities to speak—those changes should be:
• Clearly articulated in advance
• Applied uniformly
• Adopted as policy, not improvised during meetings
What cannot happen is selective flexibility.
A public meeting is not advocacy theater. It is a civic forum governed by rules designed to ensure fairness, balance, and legitimacy.
The Fix Is Simple
This issue is easily corrected.
The City can:
• Reaffirm the public comment rules at the start of meetings
• Apply them consistently to all speakers, regardless of viewpoint
• Enforce time limits evenly
• Ensure speakers are not allowed multiple opportunities to comment on the same agenda item
Doing so would help restore confidence that the process is fair—even when outcomes are debated.
Why This Matters
El Cerrito is navigating consequential decisions that will affect residents for years to come. In moments like these, trust in process is non-negotiable.
Residents do not need unanimity.
They do need fairness.
When rules are announced but not evenly enforced, people notice. And when the public begins to believe that process bends depending on who is speaking, confidence erodes quickly.
Fair process isn’t optional.
It’s foundational.
Shaped by public discussion and social media analysis from concerned residents across the community.
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 