Recommendation on Modesto mask ordinance stalls as board seeks more input
The Community Police Review Board’s ad hoc committee on Modesto’s mask ordinance delayed making a recommendation, saying it plans to gather more community feedback and consult with other jurisdictions first.
The committee said it wants to ensure residents can provide input that directly informs its research and recommendations, including a community survey in both English and Spanish. It also intends to consult with other jurisdictions that have adopted city-level ordinances to learn how their provisions are interpreted and enforced.
“We will continue to meet, gather information and engage stakeholders over the coming weeks. As we anticipate drafting our reports, we do look forward to sharing our findings and recommendations with the board and the community in the near future,” said Latricia Beasley Day, board member and part of the committee.
Board and committee member Wendy Byrd told The Bee on Thursday that the ad-hoc committee continues to receive new information beyond what it’s already heard, which will be included in its report. “Once our report is complete, the full board will need time to review it and place it on an agenda for open discussion,” Byrd said in a statement. She anticipates that being done by the September board meeting.
The update came during Wednesday’s CPRB meeting, which did not agendize the ordinance for discussion. Still, 10 members of the public spoke during public comment, urging repeal of the mask ban.
Modesto Municipal Code lists 19 items that “no person shall utilize, carry, or possess” while attending or participating in any “demonstration, rally, protest, counter-protest, picket line, march, or public assembly.” Among those are glass bottles, tactical vests, baseball bats and masks — “except for coverings worn due to religious beliefs, practices or observances or due to medical necessity.”
In a statement to The Bee, the Central Valley Black, Indigenous, People of Color Coalition (CVBIPOCC) — which organized the ICE Out protest on June 14. — said it was disappointed by the CPRB’s delay in making a recommendation to the City Council, citing the group’s persistent advocacy on the issue over the past two months.
“We can understand the need to ensure thoughtfulness, care, and due diligence in the process of reviewing the ordinance, and at the same time, we feel there has been a significant and sizable amount of community input, as well as compelling evidence and support from reputable organizations such as ACLU Northern California and the First Amendment Coalition, which offer a comprehensive understanding of why Municipal Code 4-23.02 is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and unenforceable,” reads the statement.
“We remain hopeful that CPRB will choose to stand with the people on the right side of history and put forth a recommendation to repeal this ordinance once and for all, so that we can safely exercise our freedom of speech without fear of targeted punishment from the state, especially in this political moment when speaking out and disrupting injustice in our community is of the utmost importance.”
The mask ban ordinance was first passed in 2019 after the Modesto Police Department asked for it ahead of a proposed straight-pride rally that year. Two years later, the City Council added to the list of items banned at protests, demonstrations and other public assemblies. That update included metal containers, gas masks and riot gear.
Marjorie Sturdy, president of the Modesto Progressive Democrats and organizer of the No Kings protest, said she took part in demonstrations when the mask ordinance was first enacted and, after being intimidated and threatened by masked members of the Proud Boys, believed the ban was a good idea at the time.
“However, obviously the environment has changed. The climate is different,” Sturdy said. “I believe the ordinance is way too ambiguous, and at the very least needs to be rewritten with some more directives.”
Charges were recently dropped against the five people arrested for wearing masks during the June 14 protests. The city now waits for the CPRB to present its review and recommendation of the ordinance before taking further action.
More letters against city ordinance
On Aug. 15, the ACLU and the First Amendment Coalition sent a new joint letter to the CPRB, urging it to recommend that the City Council repeal or substantially amend the ordinance without further delay.
The letter further urges the board to recommend that any proposed amendments be placed on a City Council agenda for public debate, so councilmembers can understand why some provisions of the ordinance are “not only unclear and unworkable, but also discriminatory in violation of controlling law.”
“As recent events indicate, Modesto police are enforcing these problematic provisions of the municipal code, underscoring the need for swift action,” the letter reads. “While we welcome the news that the City Attorney will not prosecute the people arrested on June 14 on charges of violating the anti-mask provision, no one should face the threat of arrest for exercising their right to protest — or right to document a protest — while wearing a face covering or possessing any of the many other prohibited items commonly present during a protest. Indeed, such a threat of prosecution for engaging in these constitutionally protected acts creates a chilling effect contrary to law.”
The joint letter follows two earlier letters from the ACLU and the First Amendment Coalition sent to the city, which called for the ordinance’s amendment or repeal and raised concerns about threats to free speech for protestors and journalists covering the demonstrations.
At the CPRB meeting, a letter was also read on behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Stanislaus County, expressing solidarity with CVBIPOCC and its demands, while also calling for greater accountability and oversight powers for the board.
“Knowing that our allies in CVBIPOCC and others seeking social justice and freedom are dissuaded from speaking, whether by the chilling effect of a law or the intimidation of a disparate enforcement is unconscionable. Do the right thing and address the demands issued by CVBIPOCC immediately and in good faith,” the letter read.
