170 callers spammed SLO County meeting — over a non-issue that wasn’t even on the agenda

Far be it from us to discourage the free exchange of ideas, but there’s got to be a better way to manage public comment in this time of COVID.

Case in point: On Tuesday morning, county officials say 170 recorded calls were submitted to the Board of Supervisors meeting during the public comment period. Most were in opposition to the idea of a so-called “vaccine passport.”

Not only was that item not listed on the agenda, it’s not even under consideration by the county, although proof of COVID vaccination can be required by businesses and other organizations. For example, all UC and CSU campuses, including Cal Poly, are requiring students to be vaccinated if they plan on attending in-person classes this fall.

County Health Officer Penny Borenstein did speak to the topic during her regular COVID update at the start of the meeting. She said SLO County has no intention of developing a “vaccine passport.”

“Further, we haven’t heard anything at the state or federal level about intentions to develop such a document or program,” a County Health spokesperson said later.

Nonetheless, something spurred concerned callers — some of whom questioned the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines, often using the same wording.

That delayed the business portion of the meeting — which included weighty items on homelessness, mail-in versus in-person voting, and supervisors’ salaries — by a couple of hours, though eventually the board agreed to enter some of the 170 COVID calls into the record, without playing them.

But there could be a repeat performance at the board’s next meeting. At the request of Supervisor Debbie Arnold, the board will consider sending a letter in support of proposed state legislation — AB 327 — that would prohibit any state agency or local government from requiring proof of vaccination “as a condition of receiving any service or entering any place.”

Supervisor Bruce Gibson — who voted against putting the item on the next agenda — said another discussion would result in the board once again being “overwhelmed” by hours of recorded phone calls.

Board Chair Lynn Compton said the public has the right to be heard.

“That is our job to do that,” she said.

Both supervisors are right.

Many times we’ve seen programs and projects vastly improved as a result of public comments made at board meetings — but there must be some practical limits in place.

That’s a challenge with online meetings. Special interest groups — including anti-vaxxers and far-right conservatives demanding voter IDs and hand-counting of ballots — can request that their members leave recorded messages on a phone line, knowing they will be played before a captive audience of county officials and at-home listeners.

As far as we know, there’s nothing to prevent callers from Utah or Florida or Massachusetts from leaving a message on San Luis Obispo County’s comment line.

That eats up time that should be spent on the important issues that are under the county’s control. It also gives supervisors a skewed sense of what their constituents actually believe, and in this case, it gives anti-vaxxers a bully pulpit.

And it could catch on. If every meeting gets hijacked this way, elected officials won’t have enough time to do the public’s business.

We fully support public participation. To that end, we urge the Board of Supervisors to continue allowing the public to comment via live phone calls once in-person meetings resume. That’s a convenience for people who have transportation issues, health issues, or can’t spare the time to attend a public hearing in person.

But board meetings shouldn’t have to last 12 or 13 hours.

The county should treat them as it does other forms of communication, such as letters and emails.

Make them accessible in advance to board members and the public, either by transcribing them for inclusion in the board packet or by posting the recordings online.

As for those who might be inclined to spam public comment periods with off-target crusades, please reconsider.

This editorial has been updated to clarify that the board did vote to put some of the recordings on the record without playing them during the meeting.

This story was originally published May 5, 2021 at 6:30 AM.