City Council votes against reinstatement
The Healdsburg City Council decided Tuesday night to continue limiting public comment to in-person and written submissions, declining to reinstate live remote participation via Zoom after a detailed review of legal, operational and security concerns.
“After a thorough and wide-ranging discussion, the council decided unanimously to continue on the current path and not return to online public comment,” said Mayor Chris Herrod.
The decision followed a presentation from Assistant City Manager April Mitts, who outlined the findings of a City Council subcommittee and staff review examining whether the city should resume hybrid public comment for non-agenda items. The subcommittee—composed of Councilmembers Ariel Kelley and Evelyn Mitchell—recommended maintaining the current practice, which allows members of the public to speak in person or submit written comments by email or letter.
“The subcommittee does recommend that we continue with the traditional in-person and written public comment as opposed to shifting over to a hybrid version,” Mitts said.
Healdsburg discontinued live remote public comment in October 2023 amid a surge of disruptive and hate-filled incidents at public meetings across the region, often referred to as “Zoom bombing.” The city’s review was prompted in part by recent amendments to the Brown Act, including Senate Bill 707, which expanded and clarified public participation requirements for certain legislative bodies.
Mitts explained that while SB 707 broadens access requirements for “eligible legislative bodies,” Healdsburg does not fall into that category due to its size and therefore is not required to provide live remote public comment. As a result, the city retains discretion over whether to offer that option.
The presentation acknowledged potential benefits of remote participation, including increased access for residents unable to attend meetings in person and greater flexibility for council members. However, staff and the subcommittee concluded those benefits were outweighed by practical challenges.
Among the concerns cited were technical reliability issues, increased staffing demands, security risks and difficulties maintaining decorum in a virtual setting. Mitts noted that under SB 707, certain technical failures during a meeting—such as audio or connectivity disruptions—could require halting proceedings altogether.
Security risks were a central focus of the discussion. Staff described the potential for meetings to be disrupted or overtaken through hacking or coordinated interference, with limited ability for city staff to intervene in real time.
Councilmember Kelley said the option of piloting remote public comment was considered but ultimately rejected because of the resources required. “The amount of energy that would have to go into it wasn’t just flipping a switch,” Kelley said. “We wanted to make a threshold decision.”
Councilmember Mitchell said she initially expected to support remote participation but changed her view as the review progressed. “The barriers just kept piling up,” she said, citing staff workload, security vulnerabilities and reports of disruptive behavior at meetings elsewhere. “It just became really cumbersome.”
City Attorney Samantha Zutler provided legal context, explaining that state law strictly limits when a speaker—whether in person or online—can be cut off during public comment.
“It is still the case that the only time we can remove someone from a council meeting or cut off their microphone is if they are so disruptive that their comments stop the council from doing any business,” Zutler said.
She clarified that offensive language alone does not meet that standard. Profanity, she said, is not sufficient grounds for removal unless it rises to the level of disruption or irrelevance under the Brown Act. In practice, decisions to mute or remove a speaker are made by the mayor, often in consultation with the city attorney.
Kelley referenced experiences at other agencies where staff were subjected to racist or abusive remarks during remote public comment without legal recourse to intervene. She said those experiences weighed heavily in the subcommittee’s deliberations.
Other council members expressed support for the recommendation, noting that Healdsburg residents continue to have multiple avenues to communicate with elected officials, including written correspondence and direct contact.
Councilmember and former mayor David Hagele offered brief support, thanking the subcommittee and staff for their work and endorsing the recommendation to maintain the current system.
Mayor Herrod said he approached the issue with an open mind but agreed with the conclusion. “Public input is super important,” he said, while acknowledging the challenges posed by live remote participation. He also emphasized that council members regularly review emails and written submissions, and remain accessible to constituents.
During the meeting, the mayor opened the item for public comment. No members of the public spoke.
With consensus apparent among council members, the council directed staff to proceed with maintaining the existing public comment structure. Mitts said the subcommittee and staff will continue work on broader updates to the city’s governance protocols and are expected to return to the council with recommendations by March 31.
The decision leaves Healdsburg aligned with most Sonoma County cities, which stream meetings online, but do not allow live remote public comment.
