I have agendized a measure for the April 1 City Council meeting that would provide a compromise between applause proponents and opponents that is intended to expedite City Council meetings without depriving anyone of their First Amendment rights. The resolution is at the end of this email.

In my informal poll, the anti-clappers outvoted the pro-clappers by a margin of 14-3. Later results were 8-1 against clapping. On the other hand, applause supporters are obsessed with the proposition that it is both harmless and essential.

For background, see:

• Pro-Clappers and Anti-Clappers Respond, March 20, 2014
• Clap or Not to Clap, March 19, 2014

Late arriving opinions:

Anti-Clappers

• Oh, stop me before I share my opinion again . . . I absolutely agree that most applause is mostly an emotional response and only partly a signal to elected officials." I would say that sometimes it certainly *is* a signal of agreement and encouragement for some stated idea. I also think ya kinda hafta be there—which I am very guilty of not being. I don’t go to the council meetings—I have a longstanding Tuesday night thing that makes it almost impossible for me to get to the council meetings. But I do think that applause *can* be used as a disruption—if, for instance, every time someone tries to speak, applause breaks out again and again and continues long enough that it’s clear the intent is to drown out the speaker.  Additionally, sincere applause can add up, as Tom points out, to more time than the meeting can afford. This is why at some gatherings it is specifically requested, “Please hold your applause” until whatever has been completed, all the speakers introduced, all the views expressed, whatever. It’s just another case that almost any behavior can be motivated by almost any intent.
• I would prefer conduct at Richmond City Council meetings in accord with U.S Congressional Rules of Decorum, wherein applause allowed only during the Presidential State of the Union Address to Congress and the Government. 
• I will heartily agree that officials should feel free to *request* the audience hold their applause, and remind them loudly and often that the meeting will go so much faster if they do. Where we presumably disagree is that the audience should be *ejected* for applauding in spite of such requests. IMO the officials serve the public and if the public wishes to engage in time consuming applause then let them. When it crosses into “willful disruption” then I agree that ejection is warranted. In fact, I would submit that the planned and repetitive testimony by numerous members of an interest group constitutes a far more willful and delaying action than an audience applauding a speaker’s point. And we have yet to throw any group out for extending our meetings beyond midnight.
• I like number six with consequences if it isn't adhered to and the other room idea is brilliant. One of the big side effects of so much disorder is it keeps serious commentators as well as potential new council candidates from wanting to participate.  I think the Mayor has the responsibility for keeping an orderly meeting, I can only hope the next one takes it seriously.
• The rule should be no applause or calling out.  Applause and yelling from the audience often seem to turn into a contest to see who can clap or yell "yay" or "boo" the loudest.  It is disturbing and destroys the focus on the issue at hand.  Council meetings are not sporting events; they are serious discussions for important city business.  Council meetings are also not game shows where the loudest part of the audience wins a prize.  Applause and raucous behavior accomplish nothing but irritating and angering the other side and delaying meetings.  Let's stop it.
• Silence!...give them all cardboard fans, like in old Southern churches, etc. to wave in support, or rally flags and pretend it's a baseball game. This is ridiculous to be wasting time when there is so much on the table! Disruptors should be sent to the hall and paid antagonists should be outed and cited.
• Please add me to the anti-clappers.  When time is scarce and speaker lists are long, demonstrations have to be limited so business can be completed.  Period. I am struck by the tone and nature of Mr. Bates’ statements.  They continue to be vaguely plausible to someone who has not seen anything else about the matter, but off-topic and biased to a person who has devoted any attention to background.  Does he write this stuff himself, or does Chevron?
• I am in complete agreement with your position on applause and other disruptive and inappropriate responses of the audience at Council meetings.  I occasionally watch meetings on television and am appalled at the uncivil and disrespectful behavior of some of our fellow citizens--not only in the audience but also at the podium and on the Council itself.    I applaud  the stand that you, the Mayor, and Ms. Beckles have taken about this matter.  Mr. Bates should get professional (in this case, legal) advice before opining on matters about which he has only superficial knowledge.  Unfortunately, it is unlikely that his intended audience will make such a demand.

Pro-Clappers

• Specific to Tuesday's Council Meeting:  Watching the event on television it appeared to me that the Council itself caused the brouhaha--a council member raising the clapping issue that should have been an item on another meeting's agenda and the mayor's high pitched, nearly hysterical, response to the audience's response.  If the Council wishes to institute a decorum protocol, please discuss it as an agenda item with input from citizens and council members. General comments:  Having watched Council meetings on TV for years, I have noticed that the audience claps not only for those comments citizens make at the podium with which they agree,  but also to encourage and respect those who have difficulty speaking--the shy, awkward, sometimes inarticulate folk.  It is a display of camaraderie that I welcome.  If you have ever attended an African-American church service you might have noticed there are often comments and other vocalizations from the congregation during the service.  A City Council meeting is a "civic church" for many of us and to expect  rigid High Church decorum is expecting something that we are not.  You noted that Richmond is unique--you betcha!

Hard to Categorize

• This is getting really petty. He said this, and she said that sounds like grammer school uncontrolled. There is no right on this. Take a step back and don't worry about who is right or wrong. Lift your head up and get past this petty baloney. Get things done the best way you can. Stay above the fray.

The proposed resolution:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RULES AND PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO THE MEETINGS OF SAID CITY COUNCIL

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Richmond, the Council of the City of Richmond is authorized to establish rules to govern the proceedings of said Council, and;

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Richmond desires to establish the rules governing its proceedings, and;

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Richmond has formulated a set of rules to govern its proceedings, and;

WHEREAS, the rules formulated by the Council of the City of Richmond and adopted as Resolution 61-13 are set forth in the document entitled “City of Richmond City Council Rules of Procedure and Order” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and:

WHEREAS, Both the Brown Act and the courts have supported the public’s right to broad discretion in what they say when they are speaking at the podium, but this discretion narrows considerably once they take their place back in the audience, and;

WHEREAS, decorum, like art, is in the eye of the beholder, and whether or not applause is disruptive is being debated in cities all over the U.S. What is pretty clear, however, is the right of a legislative body to set reasonable rules and enforce them. See below from Western Cities:

Court-Approved Rules of Decorum

A municipality need not reinvent the wheel when adopting rules of decorum for its meetings. Sixteen years ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the following ordinance in the landmark case of White v. City of Norwalk:

Each person who addresses the council shall not make personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane remarks to any member of the council, staff or general public. Any person who makes such remarks, or who utters loud, threatening, personal or abusive language, or engages in any other disorderly conduct which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any council meeting shall, at the discretion of the presiding officer or a majority of the council, be barred from further audience before the council during that meeting.

Norwalk had construed the ordinance as allowing ejection only if a person’s speech actually disrupted, disturbed or otherwise impeded the meeting. Based on that narrow interpretation, the court ruled that the ordinance was not too vague or overbroad in scope.

Conclusion

A city council has considerable latitude to establish and enforce rules of decorum to control disruptive public speakers at open meetings. The cornerstones of enforceable rules of decorum are reasonableness and viewpoint neutrality — that is to say, the rules cannot favor either side. Even with rules of decorum in place, city council members must be prepared to tolerate coarsely phrased criticism of themselves and of the city’s policies, procedures, programs, services and employees.

Of course, no city council should ever be confronted with a situation where a person or group of people willfully interrupts a meeting such that orderly conduct of the meeting is unfeasible and order cannot be restored by their removal. Should that worst case scenario occur, however, the city council has Brown Act authority to “clear the room” and continue in session.

WHEREAS, with some exceptions, routine applause from the public audience is neither necessary nor productive, since each person in the audience has the right to sign up and speak on any subject and convey his or her opinion, support or opposition, and;

WHEREAS, routine applause can interrupt the flow of and slow the meeting, and;

WHEREAS, applause is both acceptable and traditional at certain City Council activities such as presentations, proclamations and commendations, including the annual State of the City presentation, and;

WHEREAS, unity or support for a particular point of view can be demonstrated by a one-time request for supporters and opponents to stand without need for applause for each speaker, and

WHEREAS, unlike speech at the podium, applause is not a protected First Amendment right, and;

WHEREAS, routine applause is a slippery slope that often devolves into verbal expressions that feed on each other as well as contests between rival factions, and;

WHEREAS, City Council meetings are serious business and deserve a higher level of public decorum than talk shows, talent shows, game shows and other such events. Routine applause diminishes the importance and adds a level of frivolity to city council meetings that is inappropriate for the serious business that takes place there, and;

WHEREAS, Many city councils prohibit routine clapping, for example the City of San Jose Code of Conduct For Public Meetings in The Council Chambers and Committee Room states:
Persons in the audience will refrain from behavior which will disrupt the public meeting.. This will include making loud noises, clapping, shouting, booing, hissing or engaging in any other activity in a manner that disturbs, disrupts or impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting,
and;

WHEREAS, the City of Sunnyvale City Council Rules state:

Applause or other displays of approval or disapproval are inappropriate during City Council proceedings.
and;

WHEREAS, many California county boards of supervisors prohibit routine clapping, for example the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Rules of the Board states:

34. DISRUPTIONS. All demonstrations, including cheering, yelling, whistling, hand clapping and foot stomping are prohibited.

WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Rules of the Board state:

Section 15. All demonstrations, including cheering, yelling, whistling, hand clapping and foot stamping are prohibited.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richmond is committed to providing maximum opportunity for public comment on business before the City Council, but in order to complete the City Council’s business at each meeting, in order to provided everyone an opportunity to speak, in order to show fairness to those both favorable and opposed to items on the agenda and in order to avoid intimidating or discouraging public speakers who may have something unpopular to say, the City Council finds it necessary to adopt additional rules related to hand clapping and applause, and;

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Section 5 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Richmond, the Council of the City of Richmond hereby amends the rules pertaining to its meetings as are set forth in the attached document entitled “City of Richmond City Council Rules of Procedure and Order, III-E” (Proposed amended language shown bold and underlined).

Decorum by Public No person shall disrupt the orderly conduct of the Council meeting. Prohibited disruptive behavior includes but is not limited to shouting, making disruptive noises, such as boos or hisses, creating or participating in a physical disturbance, speaking out of turn or in violation of applicable rules, preventing or attempting to prevent others who have the floor from speaking, preventing others from observing the meeting, entering into or remaining in an area of the meeting room that is not open to the public, or approaching the Council table without consent. Any message to or contact with any member of the Council while the Council is in session shall be through the City Clerk.

Members of the audience shall refrain from applause except as follows:

•           During or following Presentations, Proclamations and Commendations.
•           During or following the mayor’s State of the City presentation.
•           Following the final vote on any agenda item.

One speaker each, representing the favorable or unfavorable position on any agendized item, may ask others in the audience who favor or oppose the item to stand up in order to recognize those who are in attendance but who have elected not to speak.