Modestans want action on controversial mask ordinance. But what will it take?
Since the June protests, crowds have attended meetings demanding that the Modesto City Council repeal or amend a controversial ordinance that bans face coverings during public gatherings.
During the past two council meetings, attendance has been above average — with public speakers largely denouncing elected officials for what they say is inaction. The City Council has the power to take up the issue, but its members don’t agree on what to do.
“You’ve now had two City Council meetings where people are coming and bringing these claims to you, yet no action has been taken,” said Harlan Devin, a public speaker at the July 22 council meeting. “We will be back every City Council meeting until you treat these protesters correctly, until this ordinance is repealed and until there’s an independent investigation.”
On June 14, six people were arrested during the ICE Out and No Kings protests. Five of them were arrested on suspicion of violating the mask ordinance.
On top of public outcry, the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment Coalition sent letters to the city of Modesto demanding the ordinance be repealed.
The ACLU accused the Police Department of enforcing the ordinance at the ICE Out Protest — organized by the Central Valley Black, Indigenous & People of Color Coalition — differently than it did the No Kings Protest. The ACLU threatened legal action and demanded the City Council repeal the ordinance.
But what does it take to amend or repeal a city ordinance?
Some Modesto residents have called for the immediate repeal of the city’s “mask ban” ordinance and criticized the City Council for not adding the issue to a recent agenda. The council is the only governing body that can repeal or amend the ordinance. There is nothing in the city charter that prevents the council from taking up the issue on its own.
The City Council cannot vote on items not posted on an agenda, but it can refer items to be placed on a future agenda.
Legal issues such as pending litigation can be discussed by City Council members in closed session with the city attorney. Closed session meetings have agendas listing the cases under discussion, and any items relevant to the public interest can be shared in a regular council meeting.
Because the ACLU letter threatened legal action, it can be discussed in closed session. So far, no closed session agenda indicates the council has discussed the letter.
City Council thoughts
In response to the ACLU’s letter, Councilmember Chris Ricci said in a statement that an amendment or repeal of the ordinance should begin with a recommendation from the Community Police Review Board.
The CPRB was created in late 2022 on the recommendation of the working group Forward Together with the intent of providing accountability to MPD.
Many other council members agree with Ricci and say the CPRB would need to make a formal recommendation before the council considers an amendment or repeal to the ordinance.
Mayor Sue Zwahlen, like Ricci, said she believes the matter should be introduced by a recommendation from the CPRB. Councilmembers Jeremiah Williams and Eric Alvarez also agree with this approach.
“I just want to hear from… all the community groups, CPRB, the experts on this municipal code, and I will weigh all of that out and then make a decision going forward,” said Zwahlen. “I have not, at this point, made a firm decision.”
The CPRB provides recommendations and advisory oversight to the Police Department and the City Council through the city manager, who then determines whether to move forward with recommendations.
According to the CPRB bylaws: “The City Manager shall receive and evaluate all recommendations issued by the CPRB, to include determining what next steps, if any, will be taken relative to those Recommendations.”
An ad-hoc committee was formed by the CPRB to scrutinize the ordinance. Committee chairperson Wendy Byrd said it will report its findings to the CPRB on Aug. 20. “The board will make a determination of what they want to do with that information,” she said.
“It’s not about having to go through the CPRB, it’s about including the CPRB as part of a collaborative approach in coming up with solutions,” Byrd stated in a text message sent to The Bee.
Councilmember Nick Bavaro said that before he would take action on the mask ordinance, he’d want the potential repeal or any amendments to go through the city’s Safety and Communities Committee, an advisory committee to the City Council.
He also noted that City Attorney Jose Sanchez was consulting with First Amendment attorneys in response to the ACLU’s letter. Bavaro said he hoped Sanchez’s findings and a presentation by MPD can be heard during a committee. That would inform his decision on the matter, he said.
Councilmember David Wright said he believes the ordinance is fine as it is. He cited the potential for destruction of property as one of his reasons.
“Sometimes you have people coming in from other cities that want to disrupt a protest, or they want to cause havoc, and a lot of the time they will wear a mask,” said Wright. “And that’s something we just don’t tolerate.”
He acknowledged there was no destruction of property at either protest in June. Regardless, Wright said if protesters want to wear masks, they “need to have something from their doctor, and they need to wear the right type of mask for the medical reason.”
As to whether he’d be willing to amend the ordinance to be more specific in this regard, Wright said he’d “be open to looking at it” but didn’t know how he would vote on it.
It does not appear the council will take action on the mask ban this month. With most members either wanting the CPRB to deliver a recommendation or to hear a presentation in committee from the city attorney, the matter may have to wait until fall before the council makes a decision.
“Government is time consuming, believe me, … there’s nothing that moves quickly,” said Bavaro.
This story was originally published August 4, 2025 at 3:36 PM.
