ACLU Says San Bernardino County Board Public Comment Policy Violates Brown Act and First Amendment
- EdWatch Editor
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
A cease-and-desist letter demands changes to a public-comment policy requiring speakers to identify themselves, warning it chills participation and undermines open-meeting laws.
San Bernardino, CA — The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California has formally demanded that the San Bernardino County Board of Education rescind a policy requiring members of the public to state their names before speaking at board meetings, asserting that the practice violates the California Brown Act and constitutional free-speech protections.
In a February 2, 2026 letter addressed to Board President Gwen Dowdy-Rodgers and other board members, ACLU attorney Jonathan Markovitz wrote that Board Policy 114—which instructs speakers to “announce his or her name” before providing public comment—unlawfully conditions participation in public meetings on personal identification.
The letter was sent on behalf of Debra Kamm, a frequent public commenter on education governance and transparency issues.
Brown Act and Free-Speech Concerns
The ACLU argues that the identification requirement conflicts directly with the Brown Act, which prohibits public agencies from requiring members of the public to register their names or provide other identifying information as a condition of attending or participating in a public meeting.
The letter further states that requiring speakers to identify themselves can chill participation, particularly where individuals may fear retaliation for criticizing government officials. Courts have long recognized anonymous political speech as a protected component of the First Amendment, especially in contexts involving public oversight and criticism of government conduct.
The ACLU also raised concerns about the Board’s public-comment “Registration Cards,” which instruct speakers to complete and submit cards containing their name and contact information in order to speak. While agencies may request such information to facilitate orderly meetings, the letter emphasizes that members of the public must be allowed to speak anonymously or under a pseudonym if they choose.
Related EdWatch Coverage EdWatch has previously reported on concerns raised by members of the public regarding meeting management, safety, and public participation at San Bernardino County Board of Education meetings under Board President Gwen Dowdy-Rodgers. That reporting provides additional context for the civil-liberties issues raised in the ACLU’s letter. Dowdy-Rodgers Criticized for Mismanagement After Public-Comment Confrontation Raises Safety Concerns (Nov. 28, 2025)
Prior Public Comment Concerns
In prior board meetings, multiple members of the public have also stated during public comment that other Brown Act complaints raised with the Board have not been addressed. Those statements were made
on the record during open meetings and reflect ongoing concerns among attendees about the handling of public participation and complaints.
The ACLU letter does not adjudicate those claims but situates the public-comment identification requirement within broader civil-liberties principles governing open meetings and public access.
Demand to Cease and Desist
Invoking Government Code section 54960.2, the ACLU formally demanded that the Board immediately cease and desist from enforcing the identification requirement and revise Board Policy 114 and related registration materials to comply with the Brown Act and constitutional protections.
The letter states that if the Board does not provide an unconditional written commitment to stop the practice within 30 days, litigation may follow. Under the Brown Act, a prevailing plaintiff may be entitled to court costs and attorney fees.
The letter was copied to Richard Luczak, legal counsel for the San Bernardino County Board of Education.
Source
ACLU SoCal cease-and-desist letter to the San Bernardino County Board of Education, February 2, 2026.
Comments