Nevada County Supervisor Hardy Bullock Cuts off Local Resident During Public Comment
At the Nevada County Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting on Tuesday morning, April 9, 2024, Supervisors listened to comments from the public, which occurs toward the beginning of every BOS meeting. This is a time for our elected supervisors to listen to what the public has to say, whether it be information, opinions, complaints, or praise. Each person gets three minutes to speak.
That morning, Bill Robinson, a local Nevada County resident, stood patiently in line behind other locals who wanted to share their thoughts with their elected officials. A woman stood at the podium wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf, which is typically worn to represent a pro-Palestinian stance during conflict between Palestine and Israel. She used her three minutes to speak to the BOS about that conflict. A man was in line after her, and spoke again on the same topic.
Hardy Bullock allowed them to continue with their thoughts for their allotted time, and when they finished, he thanked them and noted that he and Supervisor Heidi Hall were “in discussions with Nevada City and Grass Valley on potential assistance with the community dialogue centered on Palestine and Israel.”
Robinson was next. He greeted the Supervisors by saying “Good morning Supervisors, I hope everyone is well.” He first urged the supervisors to hold some evening meetings so that more in the community can attend. He then shared that he was there to “have a voice for the kids in the community” and urged the Board to look into the Protect Kids CA ballot initiative.
When he said “I’m not for the LBTGQ (sic) transgender days”, District 5 Supervisor and Board Chair Hardy Bullock interrupted and cut Robinson off, stating “Thank you for your comments. That’s outside the purview of this board.” Robinson replied “That’s OK”, and after the awkward interruption closed his remarks at 1 minute 30 seconds, halfway through his allotted three minutes. Robinson went quietly back to his seat. It was clear to many in the audience that Bullock’s forceful tone and timing had the effect of silencing Robinson.
“I’m just expressing my opinion”
Did Supervisor Bullock have a right to interrupt Robinson? “Absolutely not,” says Robinson. “They don’t have a right to cut me off. I’m just expressing my opinion.” Robinson articulated the essence of the California Constitution, Article I Section 2(a): “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.”
According to Nevada County’s Public Comment Guide, Robinson was within the guidelines in peaceably expressing his opinion. The section on “Decorum Tips'' in the Guide states, “General public comment is your time to share your thoughts/concerns/questions.” However, the guide also advises “Comments should be limited to topics that are within the County’s jurisdiction or purview.” Bullock, in cutting off Robinson, made clear that he believes Robinson’s concern over LGBTQ+ issues are not in the “purview of this board.”
Can Nevada County residents expect to be interrupted when they voice an opinion contrary to a member of the board, or if their opinion is not in the purview of the board? Based on his actions, we can conclude that Supervisor Bullock believes international affairs such as the Israel-Palestine conflict are in the purview of the board and opinions on this matter are acceptable, while opinions on local LGBTQ+ issues are not.
Nonetheless, child welfare and LGBTQ+ issues are within the purview of the board, as evidenced by the funding provided to Nevada County Bright Futures for Youth as set forth in Resolutions 24-083 and 24-084 which approve a total of $927,623.96 for the local organization. These resolutions fund a Friday Night Live program and a youth workforce development program. According to Nevada County Pride, “Bright Futures for Youth (formerly NEO) hosts a weekly Rainbow Social, a gathering in Grass Valley for friendship and support for LGBTQIA+ youth ages 11-25.”
The Brown Act protects free speech in meetings
The Brown Act, which governs public meetings of local agencies, states in part: “The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.” Given that the Board of Supervisors does fund child welfare programs with an organization closely tied to LGBTQ+ issues, is it possible that Supervisor Bullock has violated this section of the Act by cutting off Robinson in public comment?
The Act also provides guidance for when a member of the public can be removed from a meeting. It states: “the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting or their designee may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting.” As defined in the law, a disruptive person “actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting” or engages “in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.” Robinson’s calm and polite behavior did none of the above.