See To Clap or Not to Clap, March 19, 2014.

So far, the anti-clappers are ahead of the pro-clappers 14-3.

Interestingly, two of the three pro-clappers  seemed to be more concerned with equal opportunity to disrupt rather than getting rid of it entirely.

One responder even blamed it on me because I asked people to refrain from clapping and suggested routine clapping was more appropriate at a talent show than a city council meeting. “With all due respect, Tom, the problem last night was not entirely the fault of the people showing their enthusiasm for a speaker they agreed with  When you taunted—yes, taunted—the public by asking whether this was a talent contest, it was demeaning and insulting and THAT, Tom, was what brought on the whoops and boos.”

At a City Council meeting, everyone  has the right to speak, in turn, and whoops and boos are not an appropriate response for anyone.

I can also tell you that some of the young people wearing t-shirts were paid $13 an hour to attend the meeting and demonstrate. I know who paid them, but I’m not going to say. You know who you are. And this is not the first time this has happened.

In case you missed the whole episode, you can see the video at http://www.radiofreerichmond.com/video_council_discusses_ban_on_clapping_clears_chamber.

The responses are below:

Anti-Clappers

1.    I would love it if the people of this city would allow the city council to do their job. I am on board with keeping the chambers as efficient and courteous as possible.
2.    Please shut down the applause. It only prolongs the unduly arduous City Council meetings and makes them even more of a pathetic circus.
3.    I am all for public support and involvement but the City Counsel meeting is not a reality show. I have served on many committees and boards where meetings are beyond lengthy without any applause. While we have many important issues we ought not devolve into social media fodder for the world to laugh at every time we hold a City Counsel meeting. These are serious times, we need serious people with real solutions. We do not need jokers or posers who want to yell or clap louder than anyone else.
4.    I don't know how you stand it, Tom. These raucous council meetings seem to go on all night long, exhausting everyone who is serious about getting through the business at hand. How can grown-up people behave so immaturely? I'm surprised and disappointed Rogers and Myrick would encourage the kind of atmosphere in the council chamber that is making a laughing stock of our city government around the state. I suspect Bates and especially Booze of inviting groups of people to attend council meetings and be deliberately, intentionally disruptive. If applause is NOT protected free speech, then, if I were mayor, I would, at the start of a meeting, state the rules of audience conduct -- and if those in attendance violate the rules, I would ask them to leave. If at that point they cannot seem to find the door, I would have a police officer escort them out. Of course, the mayor will incur criticism if she exercises this level of control over the situation, but everything she does will be made out to be wrong by Booze and Bates, anyway, and there's no advantage to her for appearing weak and unable to manage her council meetings. People like Bates and Booze are obstructionists who COUNT on everyone ELSE being polite (i. e., suckers) while they themselves -- and their supporters -- behave however they please.
5.    I say "no" to applause.
6.    When a large group is honored for something, people are asked to hold their applause until everyone's name has been read.  This is done so that time is not spent applauding each person singly.  Maybe something similar could be done at the City Council meetings, where people are asked to hold their applause until the end.  I'm afraid no matter what is decided, there will be people upset at the decision.  I'm beginning to wonder if several large screen tv's should be set up in the larger room and the council should meet in a smaller room.  There can be a live feed to the tv screens, and speakers will be called to speak as their turn comes - maybe groups of 5 or 10 can be escorted in by an officer.  That way, people can applaud as long as they want, and it won't interrupt the meeting.
7.    In response to your your survey on the merits of clapping at meetings. I feel Applauding at council meetings is a stupid ego trip and a waste of my time. That's why I don't go! Save clap for the end of music, theatre and dance . Our society needs Clappers as Mentors , to clap for kids ( and adults) who express love for each other instead of ego.
8.    My opinion is that applause has no place at a government meeting. It is unfortunate that the issue came up in connection with Chevron. Bring it up again in connection with RPA and see what the result is
9.    Eliminate routine applause and other disruptive behavior.  Get a sergeant of arms who can identify individuals who routinely applaud and remove them one by one.  Once the audience gets the idea that routine applause will not be permitted, maybe the habit can be eliminated.
10.  City council meetings are not the place for routine applause after every speaker. It is NOT a freedom-of-speech issue. If you want to applaud incessantly, go to a TV game show, or a Maury Povich talk show.
11.  Clapping and yelling at the meeting is appalling behavior.  I don't know how you keep your sanity!
12.  Actually, clapping or not clapping is not really the issue, the issue is that the Mayor does not apply the rules of conduct evenly among those present.   As you say, it started with the RPA.  If it were to be applied to EVERYONE equally, I don't believe there would be such an uproar.  However as long as "some of the audience" is allowed to do whatever they want to do, there will be a problem.  When preferential treatment of one group continues, and the rest of the council does not comment or acknowledge the comments from the rest of the community,  there is going to be a lack of cooperation from the community.  All non-RPA residents feel it and I know the council members see it, too, you don't seem to care enough to try to rectify the situation. The RPA people recognize it and are very smug about it, knowing they are the "Chosen ones", which also is very annoying.  The rules would be easier to abide by if they were applied to everyone.  You can hold your own opinions, but you must treat people fairly.  Applause could be held until the end of an item.
13.  Thank you for asking.  Anything that can create an atmosphere of sobriety and seriousness to City Council meetings should be encouraged.  Our City Council meetings have degenerated to shouting matches in many cases.  Richmond seems to be home to many colorful and loquacious characters which certainly has some entertainment value, but makes it hard to get anything done.  More dignity and decorum, please.
14.  i agree with you, and any idea that this is constitutional suppression of rights belongs in the garbage, which is where much of that document should be anyway, once replaced by a truly representative expression of a democratic majority of the people...as opposed to that ruling class document of elitist slave owners and others who would probably puke to think that you were serving on a council, and puke even more to think that low-life scum like the rest of us can even vote..bates and any others who see a restriction on speech by not having time wasting applause at a meeting in which alleged representatives of the people are supposed to take care of the people's business and not simply act as provokers of cheering or booing sections need to be thinking more about what democracy means or is supposed to mean  and less about their crazed rationales for just another form of minority rule calling itself democratic..the council is supposed to be representative of the people...those who show up at council meetings may represent the business community, the religious community, the progressive community and some combination of those and more that amounts to the regressive community, but the council has a job to do *for* the people and anything that stands in its way is operating *against* the interest of the people..so, cut the crap, and if i ever attend and speak i will be sure to ask people to suspend any thunderous ovation, cheering, booing or death threats until after the meeting, at which point i will gladly accept praise and thanks and deal with the threats to the best of my ability..

Pro-Clappers

1.    With all due respect, Tom, the problem last night was not entirely the fault of the people showing their enthusiasm for a speaker they agreed with  When you taunted—yes, taunted—the public by asking whether this was a talent contest, it was demeaning and insulting and THAT, Tom, was what brought on the whoops and boos.  You didn't say it just once, Tom.  You said it at least twice and these people felt much like others felt a week before when you made your comment about poor people expecting maid service. As for the show of support after each speaker, this is much the same as when supporters of the Mayor or Jovanka line up to praise them for the most minor of things.  If the Mayor sets up a presentation to praise someone for their environmentalism when they picked up a gum wrapper off the street, supporters line up to praise that person for their civic activism and then they praise the Mayor for recognizing the wonderful actions.  Isn't this really much the same 'waste' of meeting time as what happens when someone claps?  No wait—the clapping takes maybe 5-7 seconds but each of the Mayor's or Jovanka's supporters get two minutes to verbally 'clap' to show their support. There are a lot of ways, Tom, to speed up these meetings and if the Council ever gets serious about this, then we the people in the audience can give you all pointers.  All you have to do is to listen to us.  We're actually muttering these suggestions from the audience but we're not allowed to voice our opinions any louder for fear that the Mayor will have the police cite us and boot us from the meeting.  [When I suggest you listen, I'm not talking about another straw poll amongst your own dittoheads that reply to your polls.  They're not representative of the City as a whole and I think you know this.] Just to whet your appetite, let me suggest that rather than spend 40 minutes of Council time ejecting 250 members of the public and then fighting amongst yourselves about it afterwards, wouldn't it have been more productive to simply allow the clapping?  Let's see…29 speakers times 10 seconds of clapping comes to about 290 seconds.  That's extending the meeting by almost five whole minutes—compared to extending the meeting by at least 40 minutes as the Council disrupts the meeting. Let's see if we can think of another action regularly seen at our meetings that adds little to the meeting but extends the meeting: when members of the Council—especially the Mayor—overtalks other members of the Council or the public, the agenda does not move forward.  We're simply wasting time. Or how about those interminable debates about extending the meeting so the Mayor can finish HER agenda items.  Twenty minutes of discussion on whether to extend the meeting past the Council's own deadline? There's more to this list, Tom, if you or any other member of the Council is interested.  [The Corky issue is a whole other email discussion.]

2.    Assuming for a moment your interpretation of the Brown Act is correct there's a real problem with fairness. From 2003 to 2010 we've allowed the RPA to disrupt meetings in much worse ways and we are just now deciding to drop the hammer on audience behavior? It's well known the Mayor won't condemn her compatriots, and that she doesn't mind the enormous amount of cumulative time they expend campaigning at the podium on virtually every item. Furthermore, while the Brown Act appears to allow the ejection of very offensive speakers this Mayor has elected to tolerate hateful bigots like Mark Wassberg but deny the right to clap to several hundred upstanding tradespeople? That's nuts. But I don't agree with your interpretation. The Brown Act talks about "willful disruption" and in my opinion clapping is mostly an emotional response and only partly a signal to elected officials, regardless of whether or not they care. I don't consider it willful disruption, I consider it an instinctive form of human expression and thus entitled to protection under our Bill of Rights. The fact that Richmonders love to applaud should be accepted by all our public officials as part of our unique, political vernacular.

3.    I don't see a problem with people clapping after speakers.  It's only a few seconds, and usually covers the amount of time it takes for the next speaker to reach the podium.  It gives audience members a chance to express strong positive feelings for what has been said (accent on positive!).  People in Richmond CARE!  For better or worse.  I sometimes agree with the clappers and sometimes disagree.  We audience members have such restrictions on how we can express ourselves publicly (1-2 minutes for Open Forum, 2 minutes for other items), that adding a bit of audio emphasis allows us to reinforce the strength of community sentiment.  Most of the time there's no clapping, and when there is, please just let it be and don't make a big deal of it, as long as there aren't disruptions that turn negative and obstructionist.