Officials from Provincetown to Stockbridge are being urged to review public comment policies following a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that Southborough’s civility code violated the state’s Constitution’s Declaration of Rights and Civil Rights Act.
Prior to a Southborough Selectboard meeting on Dec. 4, 2018, Acting Chair Daniel Kolnda reminded attendees of the town’s civility code, which states, “All remarks and dialogue in public meetings must be respectful and courteous, free of rude, personal, or slanderous remarks. Inappropriate language and/or shouting will not be tolerated. Furthermore, no person may offer comment without permission of the chair, and all persons shall, at the request of the chair, be silent. No person shall disrupt the proceedings of a meeting.”
Following Kolenda’s reminder, Louise Barron stood up and held a sign reading “Stop Spending” on one side and “Stop Breaking Open Meeting Law” on the other. Criticizing proposed budget increases, Barron said the town “had been spending like drunken sailors” and was “in trouble.” Barron also accused the board of Open Meeting Law violations and told Kolenda to “stop being a Hitler.” Kolenda then recessed the meeting after telling Barron to refrain from any further comments. During the recess, Kolenda reportedly told Barron she was “disgusting” and threatened to have her escorted out of the meeting if she did not leave.
Article 19 of the state Declaration of Rights states, “The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.”
In a ruling earlier this month, the SJC found that Article 19 encompassed Barron’s statements, while the civility code violated the article by attempting to control the content of her public comments. The court added that the code’s requirement that speech directed at government officials “be respectful and courteous, [and] free of rude… remarks” amounted to viewpoint discrimination—allowing lavish praise, but disallowing harsh criticism of government officials. It was, therefore, not content-neutral.
Lee Chauvette, who recently chaired his final meeting of the Athol Royalston Regional School Committee, was surprised by the court’s decision. He said he supports public participation, but at the same time feels it is non-productive to have rude, argumentative-type comments.
“School districts, Selectboards and public-based committees will now have to evaluate their public comment periods, especially if there are limitations on what can be said,” he said. “These types of comments and discussions being deemed OK may lead to a further decline in local residents to seek elective office.”
Responding to the court’s ruling, Royalston Selectboard Chair Deb D’Amico said, “I think it makes sense. I get it. I’m very comfortable with protecting free speech and feel the decision by the SJC made sense, certainly based on the Massachusetts Constitution, but also based on First Amendment rights.
“This specific incident that brought this to the court – I’ve heard audio of it and seen transcripts of what happened – and it just sounded to me like people really got hot under the collar and probably, in that instance, did not respond in a very prudent way.”
D’Amico said the ruling comes at an auspicious time for the board, as it is considering instituting a public comment policy for meetings. She said the tradition of simply allowing residents to make comments throughout the course of a meeting could slow things down.
“It’s kind of easy for people who are present to kind of forget that this is a business meeting where we’ve got to get stuff done,” D’Amico said. “I think it would be wise for us to formalize people’s contributions to the meeting.”
Asked if she feared the ruling would result in personal attacks on her, fellow board members, or other public officials, D’Amico said she was, but that is protected speech.
“When you become a public figure, even in these minor roles, you kind of have to develop a thick skin and know that people are going to say and write what they say and write,” she said. “You really have very little control over that.”
Winchendon Selectboard Chair Audrey LaBrie was disappointed with the decision, saying that everyone has the right to be heard, but also not be harassed.
“I recognize that the core of town meeting democracy is that everyone can have their say,” said LaBrie. “It’s likely that I will bring it up to the board and say, ‘Hey, this is what the state said,’ and see what the board wants to do as a whole. I personally would like to see something in writing, with snippets here and there about general comportment.”
While the SJC decision does prohibit certain restrictions on public comment, the court added that local boards are still allowed to require that public comment be conducted in an “orderly and peaceable” manner. This includes establishing a specific public comment period, time limits for each person to speak and prohibiting speakers from disrupting. Anyone found to be disrupting a meeting can, the court said, be removed. The court also noted that, while meetings must be open to the public, there is no requirement that boards and committees allow time for public comment.
Greg Vine can be reached at gvineadn@gmail.com.