The Mahomet-Seymour School Board agreed to keep public comment limits to 5 minutes for each individual Monday.
The board did not vote on the measure, but discussed the impacts of the agenda item that looked to change Board Policy 2:230 to read: “At the beginning of the public comment section of the meeting, the Board President will determine the length of time the members of the public will have to share their comments, which will be anywhere from two (2) to five (5) minutes depending upon the number of speakers and the length of the agenda for the meeting,” or “Please identify yourself prior to speaking. Please be as brief and concise as possible. We ask each speaker to limit his/her comments to less than five (5) minutes. three (3) minutes.”
“We’ve had several meetings this year where we’ve had a substantial amount of public participation,” board member Max McComb said. “We’ve been working to strike a balance. Certainly, we are interested in what the public has to say. We’ve also had concerns about time and being able to get into the business of the evening, and through the business of the meeting in a timely manner. There are many nights we’ve been here very late.”
Previously, the Mahomet-Seymour board established public participation guidelines to allow 5 minutes of public comment per individual at the beginning of a meeting, 5 minutes of public comment per individual at the end of the meeting and 1 minute of public participation after any topic on the board agenda. Their policy states an “overall minimum of 30 minutes during each regular and special open meeting” should be reserved for public participation. If there is no public participation, then the period will end.
The time limits after each topic and at the end of the meeting were taken off the table this summer.
McComb said that the new language could allow for the board to “cap” public comment when the minimum limits were hit.
“The problem we’ve had, and the concern we’ve had is, do we really want to turn people away that want to address the board? We’ve been hesitant to do that and I certainly understand why.”
McComb worked through some logistics of how public comment might look should the board want to make a change, suggesting that maybe the board could draw names for speakers, look at the amount of time people are allowed to speak or scale that time depending on how many people request to address the board.
“But then the downside is, they wouldn’t necessarily know as they were planning how long we would allow them,” he said.
Board member Lori Larson said that she thinks there should be a time limit, but board members also need to be respectful in the time they take to speak on subjects.
“Sometimes we speak too much, and too often,” she said. “We go back and forth, and we’ve taken up the turn.
“We were looking at Robert’s Rule of Order, and we were following that, and you had your time, and then we got off that. Frankly part of the mismanagement of our time, we have ourselves to blame.
“We’ve taken too much time talking about things over and over and over again. And so if we’re going to put the public to the same kind of restriction then, I feel like we need to model that ourselves, as well.”
Board member Ken Keefe said that he felt the policy should stay the same.
“I think they’re a good balance already,” he said.
Board member Merle Giles agreed that the public deserves to know the amount of time that they will have to speak prior to coming to a meeting.
Board member Jeremy Henrichs echoed Giles’ statement, saying, “I like the idea of people (knowing) what their live time is going to be so they can prepare.
Henrichs, though, said that he thought three minutes is enough for people to be clear and concise with what they need to say.
Board member Colleen Schultz said that in the last 18 months, the time she’s been on the board, the number of people who have spoken at meetings on average is 4.4.
“So while we had one meeting this year that went pretty long, in terms of public comments, that’s actually not the norm,” she said.
“Besides that one meeting we’ve never gone over an hour. Most often, we don’t even go over half an hour. And so, I’m not sure if the average of eight minutes that we’re saving is worth the thought that we’re not going to allow people to speak as much as we do now.”
Board member Meghan Hennesy said that she agrees that efficiencies need to be made in the meetings, but that reducing public comment time “Is really not an issue that probably will save us.”
“I think we’ve talked previously about ways to tighten up these meetings, but we haven’t ever seen any of those changes come to fruition,” Hennesy said. “I think that because the board meeting is the only opportunity that the public has to come and speak directly to the board, limiting or constricting that is not the best. It does not serve us when that’s the community that we serve.”
McComb left the door open to discuss this further should it be warranted in the future.
