‘Gadfly’ Conviction Worries Civic Activists : City hall: Daniel Rosenberg was found guilty of disrupting a council meeting. The verdict is seen as sending ‘a message out to silence people.’

Activists say they are concerned that last week’s conviction of self-proclaimed “super gadfly” Daniel Rosenberg for disrupting a City Council meeting may intimidate others and embolden city officials to impose new restrictions on citizens who want to speak out at council meetings.

“I’m concerned that the conviction sends a message out to silence people,” said Alan Lowenthal, president of Long Beach Area Citizens Involved. “We could lose some hard-fought freedoms.”

Rosenberg, 61, faces up to six months in jail and a $500 fine. Sentencing is scheduled Sept. 26.

A Municipal Court jury returned a guilty verdict Wednesday after deliberating barely an hour. “It was pretty clear, he broke the law,” jury foreman Scott Holbrook said moments after the jury filed out of the courtroom.

But the battle between activists and councilmen over use of the city’s microphone remains unresolved and may grow more heated during the next few weeks.

The city manager’s office is preparing a report on what to do about the problem. At least one councilman said he is also prepared to propose restrictions on speaking privileges at council meetings.

Councilman Warren Harwood said he intends to propose a regulation to limit the number of items that each citizen can discuss during a meeting.

He said he may also suggest that speakers be required to limit their remarks to city business. “We’ve had lectures about jewelry and geometry,” Harwood said. “One lady talks about her marital and mental situation. Quite frankly, it’s embarrassing.”

For months, councilmen have complained that their Tuesday meetings have been monopolized by a colorful group of regulars who use the microphone to muse about everything from beads to socialism to food stores. Sometimes councilmen roll their eyes, talk and leave the dais as the speakers ramble on. Other times they get mad--with Rosenberg frequently the target.

Officials said Rosenberg is one of the more verbose members of this group, which Harwood said has turned some council meetings into “anarchy.”

Activists said the sometimes-unwelcome discourses are a price of democracy. And while they acknowledge that Rosenberg may be irritating, they insist that he is not just another crackpot.

“People tend to look at the style rather than the substance of what he’s saying,” Lowenthal said. “The city overreacted.”

Councilman Evan Anderson Braude, who admitted that he does not like Rosenberg, said there are “limits” to an individual’s constitutional right to free speech.

“We don’t want to stop people from speaking,” he said. “But there are rules.”

Rosenberg was arrested March 20 when he kept talking despite Mayor Ernie Kell’s repeated requests that the speaker take his seat. He was booked for violating a city law prohibiting the disruption of a City Council meeting.

A 1987 California state law requires all government agencies to set aside time for public comment on any topic. But the law also provides those agencies with the authority to provide “reasonable limits” on those comments.

The law aims to balance the rights of citizens to address elected officials with the need of a government body to get its work done, city attorneys said.

Two weeks ago, the council asked the city manager’s office to compile the report on how the council might rework its laws to further control comments from the public after Rosenberg enraged several councilmen with yet another appearance at the microphone.

“Enough is enough!” Harwood told the council at the time. “City government cannot function like this!”

City Manager James Hankla, who is preparing the report for the council, said many Southern California cities are wrestling with similar issues, with varying approaches.

“We’re the most liberal city around,” he said.

Downey, for example, passed a 1988 ordinance after a local gadfly was arrested for disrupting a meeting of the City Council. The city prohibits clapping, cheering and demonstrations in the council chambers.

In 1987, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors limited speakers to one appearance every 90 days.

Anybody can now speak to Long Beach’s City Council on any topic during a 30-minute public comment session before councilmen begin business on the agenda. In addition, they can speak for three minutes on items as they come up on the agenda.

Councilmen said these comments sometimes mean that meetings drag on all day.

The council reduced the limit on agenda comments from five minutes to three minutes last year, a change that councilmen attributed to frustration with Rosenberg.

Long Beach officials contend that the city can legally pass laws regulating the public’s right to speak. “There is no constitutional right” to address the council or any other legislative body, City Atty. John Calhoun said.

An individual can say virtually anything he wishes on a street corner, Calhoun said, but “you can’t just go out on the floor of the Senate.”

However, some activists fear that the council may arbitrarily apply rules to restrict critics. They ask why the mayor continually turns off the microphone while Rosenberg is talking but allows another speaker to ramble on about bead jewelry.

“The city just wants to silence its critics,” said Craig Humphrey, a Long Beach community activist and animal rights activist. “They’re going to use this (trial) to sweep everything under the carpet.”

Moments before the trial began Monday, sources said, Rosenberg refused the prosecution’s offer that he plead no contest in return for 40 hours of community work.

“I don’t want to go to jail,” Rosenberg said after the trial. “But I don’t want people to be afraid to go to the council and stand up for what they think is right.”