SBCountyLocalBy Anna Marie Gott
Every 30 days the Santa Barbara City Council has consistently voted to continue teleconferencing of City meetings during the ongoing COVID-19 state of emergency. The last vote was held on March 8, 2022 and the Resolution stated that “the City Council would reconsider the Resolution and any extension or renewal every thirty days.” However, Rebeca Bjork, the new City Administrator, made a unilateral decision to eliminate virtual meetings for the City’s Advisory Boards on March 31, 2022. – Most, if not all, of the City Council was unaware of this change and there has not been a public discussion on preserving or eliminating virtual meetings at the City Council.
As a result of Ms. Bjork’s sweeping decision anyone who wanted to watch or participate in an Advisory Board meeting, beginning April 1, 2022, has to now do so in-person. This includes those of us in the community who cannot attend in-person meetings which is counter to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Eliminating virtual meetings, which are not only broadly popular with the public but allows the public to weigh in on policies and decisions that impact their lives, is a tremendous loss for residents. It is also a blow to democracy itself because fewer people will participate when they are required to meet in-person either due to the fear of the coronavirus or the inability to attend an in-person meeting due to work, caregiver obligations, or a disability. Furthermore, at a time when the City is intentionally trying to increase public participation due to equity concerns it seems poor form to eliminate virtual meetings.
For two years members of the public with computers or smartphones have been able to easily login from home, work, or on the go, to participate in, and attend, Advisory Board meetings. While others have been able to do so by phone.
However, now that Ms. Bjork has eliminated virtual meetings for Advisory Boards all of the gains which include everything from increased public participation, accessibility and transparency, to recordings of public meetings that had never been available before have been lost.
What are the far-reaching consequences of this unilateral action? It means that a select few who have the ability to attend a meeting, often during the middle of the day, can continue to participate in our local government while those of us who will not be able to participate in in-person meetings will no longer be able to participate. The end result is that the City Council will enact laws and regulations that may not be broadly supported by residents.
Holding in-person public meetings during the day when most residents are working inherently prioritizes the interests of a minority of the population who have the freedom to lobby for what they want. Those who have attended in-person meetings in the past are generally retirees, paid “lobbyists”, or those who will financially benefit from a change such as business and property owners as well as architects and developers. The population who generally cannot attend in-person meetings are generally, renters, workers, full-time parents or caregivers, those with disabilities, and students. – Don’t you think that going back to in-person meetings seems to favor the have’s over the have nots and is perpetuating well-known built-in inequities?
Finally, when Ms. Bjork was asked the reason for eliminating virtual meetings, she said it was due to the additional staff required to manage remote public comment. – She did not claim lack of equipment or trained staff.
Hosting a hybrid meeting where an Advisory Board meets in-person while some members of the public participate virtually through Zoom or by phone does not require a second person or a large amount of effort to run the meeting. Anyone who knows anything about hosting virtual meetings knows that one person can manage public comment while facilitating the meeting and taking notes. So, the reason Ms. Bjork states does not ring true.
There is simply no good reason to eliminate virtual meetings for our Advisory Boards and every reason to continue them.
If you feel as I do and would like to see the City of Santa Barbara begin holding hybrid meetings for their Advisory Boards, please sign this Change.org/VirtualMeetings petition and/or send a short email to the City Council asking them to reinstate virtual meetings immediately.
Here is a sample email to send to the City Council and Administrator (SBCityCouncil@SantaBarbaraCA.Gov, Clerk@SantaBarbaraCA.Gov, RBjork@SantaBarbaraCA.Gov)
Subject: Reinstate Virtual Meetings for Advisory Boards
Mayor and City Council,
I would like the City Council to agendize and vote to reinstate virtual meetings for Advisory Boards.
Ensuring that the public has the ability to attend public meetings virtually in order to participate in our local government is simply the right thing to do. The pandemic has shown us that allowing the public to attend and participate remotely is easily accomplished, is more democratic, provides more transparency to the public on governmental actions, allows those who would not otherwise be able to attend a public meeting to participate from home, work or wherever they may be, and increases public participation. – Additionally, virtual public meetings are broadly popular and help to reduce built in inequities.
For these reasons, I want the City of Santa Barbara to continue to offer virtual meetings for every Advisory Board.
Op-Ed’s are written by community members. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat. Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at .
There’s 2 issues the author failed to recognize. 1. The government is not interested in democracy or hearing the public’s opinions 2. It’s the government so it absolutely takes more than 1 person to hold the virtual meeting. 1 person to do the work, 2 people to supervise them, and a panel to audit the work of the supervisors.
SACJON, the argument is probably that immunocompromised folks cannot risk COVID at an in-person meeting. I think that particular argument is sort of a stretch at this point in time although totally valid at other points in the pandemic. HOWEVER I really do not see any good argument against hybrid meetings! Public participation is a good thing, hybrid meetings only make it more accessible to the average citizen.
A-1649706482 – can you give some examples of Ms. Bjork’s “history of cozying up to the people in charge and taking the flack for decisions they want made but don’t want to have it known that they want them made”?
I have not seen this. What I have seen is a consistent history of rationale and effective decision making by Ms. Bjork. Does she sometimes make wrong decisions, sure, as do we all. But I have not seen the track record that you reference.
The root of this complaint (from the City’s most infamous complainer, SBCOUNTYLOCAL) is that city meetings, if go back in person make it extremely difficult for her to optimize her complaining schedule. With virtual meetings, she could sit in her troll reseeach center, and efficiently weigh in on anything and everything on every board’s agenda. Sounds sick, but I personally miss her relentless dramatic diatribes at the speakers podium. It reminds me of some kind of improv exercise, where the agenda is handed out and she must pick a topic to rant about just to hear her own voice. Please bring back public meetings for entertainment purposes only!
Prime example of Bjork’s adaptive behavior is her taking the flack and lead for the absurdly expensive 2d desalination contract and the decades long obligation that it creates for local ratepayers (now Montecito ratepayers as well). We didn’t use the 1st plant and will not be using the 2d plant often as alternatives are near even if there is a significant shortage of natural water or SWP water. But the politicians wanted to do what their crowd was spooked into cheering for. So the contractors will get their money even if nothing is being produced. This was not unknown, they did the same thing at Carlsbad and elsewhere. She then covered for the elected officials and then was rewarded by being made city manager. Pretty obvious.
EHDAT it sounds like you don’t like free speech and see no value in public meetings being more accessible by retaining remote access for residents. Additionally, your negative comments meet the definition for cyber bullying. Why don’t you stick to commenting on the issue rather than attacking someone who is advocating for increased public access to city meetings?
Over the past two years I have utilized Zoom to attend and speak at several government meetings to express my opinions about an issue that concerns me personally. I encourage the continuance of recording all meetings and providing virtual access for public participation. Anyone who sits through the endless self-congratulation and partisan blowviating will come away with a new appreciation of the state of civilizational decay. The meetings limited public input to 3 minutes for each speaker, with a limited number of pre-scheduled slots for that, and we were always asked to wait as the Elect spent the first part of the meetings announcing commemorative days and their own accomplishments. It is the Sausage Making they would rather us not see. In the case of the issue I spoke on I cannot see that it had any effect at all, nor did numerous letters sent directly to the politicians. As they say, all politics is local. We deserve better.