Salina Commission Reviews Public Participation Rules, Meeting Decorum

The Salina City Commission on Monday reviewed its public participation policy for open meetings, continuing a discussion that began after Commissioner Gary Norris raised concerns about meeting decorum and how the city’s existing rules are enforced.

City Attorney Patrick Hoffman presented commissioners with the city’s current policy, the legal framework surrounding public participation and examples of how other Kansas communities handle public comment.

Hoffman said he reviewed policies from a number of cities while preparing the presentation and found that Salina is not alone in dealing with questions surrounding public participation and increasingly contentious meetings.

“I do see a lot of other cities somewhat struggling or dealing with the same kinds of issues that we’re dealing with this summer,” Hoffman said. “So I don’t think this is just a Salina situation.”

Hoffman said controversial issues can generate strong emotions, but orderly meetings ultimately serve both the public and commissioners.

“I truly believe this: orderly meetings allow for better communication with the public and do result in better decision making by city leaders,” Hoffman said.

Hoffman: Public Has Right to Observe, Not Automatically Participate

Hoffman said the Kansas Open Meetings Act gives members of the public a right to observe government meetings, but does not create a general right to participate in them.

“Kansas has what we call the Open Meetings Act that gives the public the right to observe the meeting,” Hoffman said. “It’s not a right to participate in the meeting.”

He emphasized that regular commission meetings are governmental business meetings rather than unrestricted public forums.

“These meetings are business meetings of the City of Salina,” Hoffman said. “They’re not open forum town halls.”

Certain public hearings are different because state law requires an opportunity for public participation.

“There are some topics where, by statute, there’s a public hearing,” Hoffman said. “The public does have a right to speak on a public hearing topic.”

Salina, however, generally provides more opportunity for participation than that minimum requirement.

“The way Salina conducts our meetings, we really treat every agenda item in the same way as a public hearing,” Hoffman said.

City Cannot Restrict Viewpoints

Hoffman also stressed that any rules governing participation must comply with the First Amendment.

The city can regulate the time, place and manner of participation to keep meetings orderly, he said, but it cannot favor one viewpoint over another.

“What the city has an interest in is conducting a reasonable meeting in terms of the timeliness, people are talking, and the manner and operation of the meeting,” Hoffman said. “But we can’t prohibit viewpoints.”

He used an interruption praising commissioners as an example.

“It would be equally disruptive and inappropriate for someone to shout during a city meeting, ‘You guys rock,’” Hoffman said.

“We’re used to getting more criticism than positive feedback during the meeting, but they’re both equally invalid because it’s not your turn to speak,” he said.

Applause, Booing and Talking Over Speakers

Salina’s current policy prohibits audible interruptions while another person has been recognized to speak.

That includes applause, whistling, cheering, clapping, booing, jeering, taunting, ridiculing or otherwise making noise while another person has the floor.

Hoffman said there are practical reasons for those restrictions beyond maintaining decorum.

Commission meetings are streamed online and automatically captioned. When multiple people talk at once, Hoffman said, those captions can become inaccurate or unusable for viewers who depend on them.

“The point is, only one person is allowed to talk at a time,” Hoffman said. “It’s that simple and that important.”

Hoffman also said overlapping conversations can make it difficult for people inside the room to understand what is happening.

“If you need to have a real conversation, or if you just really need to show someone support, I would ask you to do it in the hallway so the rest of us can listen to the meeting,” Hoffman said.

Under the current policy, someone violating the rules may first receive a warning. If the conduct continues, the person can be asked to leave and potentially escorted from the meeting.

“Nobody wants this to happen,” Hoffman said. “Nobody likes it when this happens.”

Signs Restricted, Clothing Is Different

Hoffman also reviewed the city’s restrictions on flags, banners and other items he described as “props.”

He said those items can interfere with sightlines or otherwise disrupt people’s ability to observe the meeting.

Clothing, he said, is different.

“Thanks to the First Amendment, we, as a country, do not tell anyone what they can or cannot wear,” Hoffman said.

That means someone may wear a shirt or other garment displaying a personal message, political statement or criticism.

“If a person wants to put a T-shirt or garment and have their personal motto or creed or a criticism of someone on it, they have every right to do that,” Hoffman said.

Norris Clarifies Why He Raised the Issue

When commissioners began discussing Hoffman’s presentation, Norris clarified his comments from the earlier meeting.

Norris said he may not have communicated his concerns clearly the first time.

“I think perhaps I either misspoke last time or was not heard like I intended to speak,” Norris said. “Both of those would be my fault and not yours.”

He emphasized that he is not opposed to public forums.

“I’ve never in my life had an issue with having public forums,” Norris said.

Norris said he has participated in many public meetings, including difficult ones, and said those meetings ultimately worked through their issues.

“What I said was I’ve been at a lot of them, and I had some tough ones and some not-so-tough ones, but they all worked out,” Norris said.

His concern, he said, is whether the city consistently follows its existing rules, particularly the portion of the public participation policy governing forms of communication or expression not allowed in the meeting room.

“I really like and support our policy on where it says forms of communication or expression not allowed in the room,” Norris said. “And as long as we run a tight ship and follow our own rules, I have zero problem with hearing from the public.”

Norris said his broader request was for civility.

“My plea is that we not get too snarky with each other,” Norris said. “There’s no reason. It’d be nice to be civil.”

Davis Suggests More Public Input During Study Sessions

Commissioner Trent Davis raised a different issue during the discussion: whether the city could create more opportunities for residents to participate in study sessions.

“Our study sessions have become a bit rigid,” Davis said.

Davis recalled earlier study sessions held in a smaller room where residents had more opportunities to participate in the discussion.

“We did have the opportunity for more citizen input, and sometimes it would get down to a free-flowing conversation,” Davis said. “But that sometimes is a nice environment in which to get comments from citizens.”

He said current study sessions often take the full amount of time available and provide little opportunity for public participation.

“Our study sessions have usually taken the entire hour and a half, and there isn’t any opportunity for public input,” Davis said.

Davis also said written comments from residents remain valuable and noted that he tries to respond to them.

Advance Registration and Time Limits Discussed

Hoffman also presented several approaches used by other Kansas cities and government bodies.

Those include requiring people to register before speaking, limiting the overall public forum period and changing the amount of time available to individual speakers when a large number of people want to participate.

Hoffman said advance registration could make meetings run more smoothly because the city clerk would know who intends to speak and in what order.

“It would run a smoother meeting if we prior registered,” Hoffman said.

He also noted that many communities he reviewed use three-minute individual speaking limits.

“What’s funny to me is that all the cities that have an individual time limit have decided that three minutes is the right amount of time,” Hoffman said.

Some governments also cap the total public forum period at 30 minutes.

Another option Hoffman suggested was changing how comments on individual agenda items are handled. Staff could first make its presentation, followed by public comments. Staff could then address questions raised during those comments before commissioners begin their discussion.

Public Comment Is Not the Only Way to Contact the City

Hoffman also reminded commissioners that speaking during a commission meeting is only one way residents can communicate with city government.

Residents may submit written comments for commission meetings, email commissioners directly, contact city staff or use the city’s service request system for issues such as potholes or other concerns.

Hoffman said staff can often provide more complete answers when they have time to research a question rather than being asked to respond immediately during a meeting.

Commission Could Keep Existing Policy

Hoffman made clear that commissioners do not have to change anything.

“There’s always the option of the status quo, just keeping our policy as it is,” Hoffman said.

If commissioners ultimately decide changes are warranted, Hoffman said staff would draft a revised public participation policy and bring it back to the commission through a resolution at a future meeting.