Opinion: Punitive removal laws won’t fix legislator–resident tensions

Analyzing SB 1100 (which lets legislative bodies remove members of the public from meetings if deemed “disruptive”), Joe Mathews suggests it will only flame local politician–community member conflicts. Rather than avoiding communications with residents, who may feel frustrated already, lawmakers should consistently adopt more open relations.

But in California, politicians have done little to protect journalists or everyday citizens who participate in the public square. Instead, they’ve been trying to protect themselves.

One new law, Senate Bill 1100, empowers the presiding member of a city council or other local legislative body to warn and then remove an individual judged—by the lawmakers themselves, of course—to be disruptive. …

This law isn’t particularly novel. State laws already essentially bar citizens from meaningful participation in the negotiations and contracting that are central to governance. In public meetings, citizens are typically limited to short statements or questions—“three minutes at the microphone”—that elected officials aren’t required to answer. The new bill goes further in this authoritarian direction, encouraging those in power to kick dissidents out.

But, it won’t make local meetings any quieter or safer. To the contrary, frustrated citizens will likely try to get themselves removed from meetings to demonstrate the depths of their protest and perhaps create legal causes of action against local governments because of their exclusion.

The underlying lesson is that keeping the public away isn’t protection. It’s perilous, because it inspires contempt. You can only hide from angry constituents for so long.

This article originally appeared in Zócalo Public Square. Read the whole thing here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Image by drobotdean