Allen referred to several families in the letter who attended the meeting to protest the proposed closure of the Chevy Chase Branch Library, but who were not allowed to speak publicly, writing that “to deny them the one-time opportunity to express their opinion is undemocratic and erodes their sense of community and civic good.”
City officials on Friday refuted Allen’s interpretation of the Brown Act, and said setting aside the 4-1 budget vote in order to reopen public comment on the matter wasn’t an option.
Chief Assistant City Atty. Michael Garcia said the city had fulfilled its legal obligation under the Brown Act for public input through the budget’s official hearing held on June 17.
Drayman on Tuesday cited several weeks worth of public budget study sessions and the official hearing on the proposed budget a week before as ample opportunity for input to be lodged, a position he repeated on Friday.
“Part of my job as the hearing officer is to move the debate forward when there is no longer any new debate . . . sooner or later, we get to the point where we must take the vote,” Drayman said.
Of the 10 people who had turned in cards to speak on the budget Tuesday, seven were frequent speakers to the council who had addressed budget issues at least once in the past month. Three cards were from those who intended to speak in defense of the Chevy Chase Branch Library.
Two of those residents on Friday said that while they were initially disappointed to learn they would not be allowed to speak, the City Council’s call for a separate report on alternatives to closing the branch library was more than adequate and that legal action to reopen the meeting was not needed.
