Kristina Duggan Chaired the Process That Nearly Gutted Public Comment in Long Beach
A new state law requires cities to increase remote participation, improve language access, and make public meetings more accessible to ordinary residents.
So why did Long Beach end up proposing some of the most restrictive public comment rules many residents have ever seen?
The process was chaired by District 3 Councilmember Kristina Duggan. Last October, Duggan led the discussion on how Long Beach should implement SB 707. The stated goal was making meetings “more welcoming and accessible.”
But the conversation quickly shifted toward “efficiency.” The committee discussed:
• shortening speaking times to 90 seconds — even 60 seconds
• reducing “repetitive commentary”
• keeping meetings “on schedule”
• and making public comment more “efficient”
Then came the May 1 staff proposal, which was devastating. Under the recommendations developed through this process, residents could have faced:
• one single public comment period at the beginning of meetings
• a cap of 3 total minutes per resident per meeting
• early sign-up cutoffs
• and fewer opportunities to respond during agenda items in real time.
By the May 12 City Council meeting — now firmly in election season — Duggan’s tone had changed dramatically. After months of framing public participation as a problem of “efficiency,” and after a staff proposal emerged that would have sharply restricted public comment, Duggan suddenly backed away from some of the most extreme recommendations and repositioned herself as more moderate. But that shift should not erase what happened before it. The process she chaired had already normalized the idea that public comment needed to be shortened, consolidated, and managed more tightly.
It did not have to go this way. The new state law is intended to EXPAND civic access — through remote participation, language access, and broader engagement with residents who historically struggle to participate in City Hall meetings.
Duggan could have led a process grounded firmly in those principles and directed staff to focus first on maximizing public participation. Instead, the conversation drifted toward efficiency, time limits, and managing residents more quickly.
Public comment is not an inconvenience. It is one of the few direct ways residents can hold City Hall accountable. And voters should ask themselves this election season: Why did a law intended to increase civic access end up producing proposals to limit it?