COUNCIL SPEAKING UP ABOUT SPEAKING OUT.

Byline: Katie Cooper Staff Writer

BURBANK - The well-dressed woman kept an impish grin on her face for the full five minutes.

From the start of her tirade when she referred to one City Council member with a euphemism for Polish, to the end when she accused another of trying to ``hide'' a Jewish bloodline, the smile remained.

Following her, another Burbank resident lashed out at the council in a speech laced with profanity.

Just business as usual at a recent Burbank City Council meeting.

But change could be afoot for the oral communication periods, time reserved each week for the public to address matters of city business that about a half-dozen residents use as a forum for personal attacks, ethnic slurs and R-rated language.

Although she declined to discuss what measures she would propose, Councilwoman Stacey Murphy said recently that she is fed up with the offensive speech and is considering steps to rein in the comment periods that alternate between five minutes and three minutes per speaker.

Among her colleagues, Murphy is likely to find ready support. At last week's council meeting, Councilman David Laurell said he was ``sick and disgusted'' by the abusive and foul language and was open to any suggestions about how it can be lawfully restrained.

City Attorney Dennis Barlow said that after the offensive speechmaking emerged as a campaign issue in the recent City Council race, he has been anticipating that council members will be seeking advice on what steps can be taken without running afoul of the First Amendment.

``The comments have become so vicious and so personal lately,'' said Barlow. Karl Manheim, a professor of constitutional law at Loyola Law School, said speech at public meetings, including that containing offensive or profane language, is fully protected by the First Amendment.

But, he said, Burbank officials could take steps to contain the comment period as long as the measures were not tied to the content of the public remarks.

Officials could, for example, limit the number of times people can address the council in any one month, Manheim said.

``It just has to be applied equally to everybody,'' he said.

Barlow said the council could also move the first period of public comment - which often lasts nearly three hours - just after the beginning of the meeting closer to its adjournment, a time when any children in attendance are likely to have left or those at home have gone to bed.

``Government teachers won't even bring their students to council meetings anymore,'' said Barlow. ``And I certainly don't want my kids to catch any of it on TV.''

In the alternative, Barlow said, officials could just stop broadcasting public comment, blacking out that portion of the meeting.

``We don't have to broadcast it, and it's very clear that some of these people are playing to the cameras,'' he said.

But any proposed change to how the public comment period is managed is not likely to sit well with the council meeting regulars who share their views weekly on city matters with the council.

C.L. Stack, a longtime Burbank resident and a fixture at the weekly meetings, said a blanket approach that would make speaking out inconvenient or less public would not be fair to those who don't use use profanity or other offensive speech.

``It wouldn't stop the profanity and then you would be defeating the whole process for people who want to speak without using any,'' said Stack. ``This is my form of therapy.''

Stack said the council should instead cut off the personal attacks that some members of the public rely on because they are not relevant to city business.

Barlow agreed that that would be a legal option for the council, but he said council members were likely to use up more time arguing that a person's comments were not related to city matters.

``Sometimes it's difficult to draw the line over what is city business,'' said Barlow. ``And then you can get into a running battle if you challenge it.''

Of course, the council could also reduce the permitted speaking time as a way to limit the amount of offensive speech, and as a consequence, move the meetings along at a quicker pace.

But an effort along those lines failed last fall, when Councilman Dave Golonski proposed cutting back the five-minute period per person to three minutes. A majority of the council, including Murphy, refused to back the measure, citing support for a longer comment period.

And the council regulars came out strongly against it, as well.

Don Elsmore, one of the council meeting faithful, said he argued against the time reduction.

``That's the one time the public gets to talk to them face to face,'' said Elsmore. ``And three minutes is not enough.''

Despite the obstacles, Murphy said she is not resigned to just accepting the comment period as it stands.

``I think there's something that can be done,'' she said, ``and I think the council will be looking into it soon.''