From the Editor’s Desk - Summer 2026

Where is civility?

We’ve probably all heard that you can disagree without being disagreeable. 

That being said, we seem to live in a space where some people seem to pride themselves, not only on disagreeing, but also on being disagreeable. 

Civility seems to have been lost.

Our leader in chief has made it acceptable to call people names, to even create memes where feces is dumped on the heads of  those 

who disagree with him.

If our president isn’t civil to people, why should anyone else be civil? Do the Karens of the world rule the roost, even though on video, people who are nasty to others are called out.

So, what is civility and why should it matter?

After doing some research this is what I found:

 Civility is the practice of treating others with respect, dignity, and consideration, even when there are disagreements. It is not simply being polite or avoiding conflict. Civility means engaging with others in a way that recognizes their humanity, listens to differing viewpoints, and seeks understanding rather than personal attacks.

At its core, civility includes  the following:listening before judging, disagreeing without insulting and speaking truthfully and responsibly, showing respect for people, even when opposing their ideas and participating constructively in community life.

Civility matters because it is the foundation of healthy relationships, effective organizations, and democratic societies.

In order to ensure that civility exists at East Palo Alto City Council meetings, the city’s attorney proposed a resolution to be adopted by the council at its June 16, 2026 meeting that amended the City of East Palo Alto “Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials” to: 

1) Comply with SB 707 by adopting formal policies addressing disruptions of telephonic or internet services during meetings;  

2) Clarify the procedures for the orderly receipt of public comment during City Council meetings; and 3)Clarify the procedure for responding to meeting disruptions by members of the public participating in-person or by remote access, consistent with several government codes.   

City staff said the proposed changes were intended primarily to clarify existing practices and ensure compliance  with state law.

Who would object to having city council meetings conducted in a civil and orderly manner?

But, would this civility restrict the community’s ability to protest   decisions that have been made or about to be made by their city council members during council meetings?

Yes, the city must comply with state law, but public meetings belong to the public.

Some community members and even one city council member have criticised Mayor Webster Lincoln for either shutting off public comment at past city council meetings or not even allowing it at all during past council meetings.

Some community members voiced their concern that these proposed rules would only  give the mayor more power to control dissent.

Senate Bill 707 requires disruption procedures, but compliance should not become an excuse to limit public participation.

East Palo Alto has a long tradition of grassroots activism and residents speaking passionately on controversial issues.

The council should distinguish between genuine disruptions and visible expressions of disagreement.

Rules should focus on behavior that prevents the meeting from proceeding, not on speech or criticism of elected officials.

Yes, we need civility at city council meetings, but the public  also needs the ability to  fully express dissenting opinions at these same meetings.

East Palo Alto can—and should—have both civility and free expression. The challenge is ensuring that one is never used to silence the other.

---

Support Independent Community Journalism

If you value the news and information provided by EPA Today, please consider making a tax-deductible donation.