Audiences at Silicon Valley government meetings are running into an increasingly common rule: no applause.
Local governing bodies like the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and San Jose City Council are telling people to avoid cheering or booing other speakers during public comments before major votes. The rule comes up when large crowds show up to comment on an issue and officials shorten public speaking times to stay on schedule.
Local officials argue these rules prevent audiences from discouraging people with less popular opinions from approaching the podium or drowning out speakers during their allotted time. But critics wonder if keeping audiences silent makes it easier for elected leaders to ignore them.
Alex Lesniak, a Santa Clara County social worker who advocates for colleagues at board meetings, said it can be powerful to hear collective agreement in the audience.
“Not every individual will feel comfortable showing their support through a formal public comment, but instead through their physical presence and vocalizing solidarity as a part of a large group consensus,” Lesniak told San José Spotlight.
For more than a year, Lesniak has brought coworkers to county board meetings to speak out against child welfare policies that led to the fentanyl overdose death of 3-month-old Baby Phoenix in 2023. At the Jan. 14 meeting, she and other social workers voiced frustration about seeing little action from county leaders despite speaking out multiple times. Supervisors limited each speaker’s public comments to one minute.
As social workers in the audience clapped for each other’s remarks, Board President Otto Lee asked them to refrain, suggesting they wave their hands in quiet support.
“A non-nuanced approach to limiting the public’s response to public comment has the ability to inadvertently silence or obscure the non-formalized public opinion present at the meetings,” Lesniak said.
First Amendment experts say no applause rules aren’t illegal and agree they’re often necessary — there was prolific Zoom-bombing during the pandemic, and a post-COVID rise in vitriol, hate speech and disruption has made public meetings more difficult to manage. But they warn it’s a careful balancing act between protecting free speech and selective enforcement, especially when local leaders are under scrutiny.
“In recent years, public decorum has really shifted. I think it’s even more challenging to have public meetings and it’s important to make sure everyone has their turn at the microphone,” Mindy Romero, a political sociologist and founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy, told San José Spotlight. “We just have to be very careful in how we ensure that — and that there isn’t any bias in how those rules are enforced.”
No applause rule
Lee said he applies the no applause rule — outlined in Section 15 of the board’s formal rules adopted in 1972 — regardless of the discussion topic or viewpoint of the speaker, and that it’s essential to creating safe, welcoming spaces for public meetings.
He said the rule achieved those goals during a recent artificial turf debate on Jan. 28, where more than 100 people spoke in support and opposition of banning artificial turf at public fields and sports facilities. Lee limited public comments to 30 seconds per speaker.
“I’m thankful that despite such a divided issue, the community was very respectful to each other and followed along with our policies,” Lee told San José Spotlight.
Romero said shortened speaking times are practical for keeping business from dragging late into the night. But she cautions it could further frustrate people who feel their elected leaders aren’t listening.
“Pretty much everyone who has to keep remarks within a minute can’t do it or ends up feeling frustrated by it,” Romero said. “True deliberation and consideration in a public forum doesn’t always happen and people may feel like their one minute is too short and sometimes even pointless.”
The rules are also on display at San Jose City Council meetings. In December, animal rights advocates showed up to speak out on inhumane conditions at the city animal shelter. Mayor Matt Mahan requested the audience shake their heads in disapproval rather than booing, and warned disruption could “stop the meeting.” Mahan limited comments to 90 seconds per speaker.
“As the chair of the meeting, the mayor is responsible for ensuring that each member of the community has an equal platform to express their support for or opposition to a proposed policy, even and perhaps especially when an individual’s view is not aligned with the majority of those gathered in the chamber,” Tasha Dean, spokesperson for the mayor, told San José Spotlight.
The trends of limiting speaking time and asking audiences to avoid clapping took hold as public participation in local government and school board meetings increased after the pandemic, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a civil liberties group which offers legal representation in free speech lawsuits.
“While such policies are unobjectionable to the extent they prohibit actual disruption, they often go too far in their language or enforcement, restricting constitutionally protected speech,” Aaron Terr, the foundation’s director of public advocacy, told San José Spotlight.
Terr added audience noise doesn’t always hamstring a public meeting.
“Some clapping might not be disruptive, such as a short and polite round of applause after someone finishes speaking,” he said.
Romero said rules of engagement are necessary, but with crucial caveats.
“The key is that they’re equally applied, clear and transparent — and that there’s deliberation over that,” she told San José Spotlight. “There should also be accountability. If the city council has implemented a set of rules, the public should be able to weigh in.”
Contact Brandon Pho at brandon@sanjosespotlight.com or @brandonphooo on X.
This story originally appeared in San José Spotlight.
The post No clapping, no cheering: Silicon Valley officials limit public expression during meetings appeared first on Local News Matters.