The Huntington City Council Rules and Ethics Committee spent substantial time on Sept. 17 discussing public-comment sign-up procedures and rules of conduct for meetings, including proposals to prioritize Huntington residents and people with local ties during long meetings, and to clarify when a speaker or member of the public may be removed for disruptive behavior.

Several committee members and residents said marathon sessions in 2025 left some Huntington residents waiting for hours while outside speakers who arrived later were heard earlier. To address that, one member proposed having two sign-up sheets (one for residents or people who live/work/own a business in Huntington and one for nonresidents) and a checkbox attesting to a Huntington address or local business. The same speaker suggested a priority order: Huntington residents first, then people who pay a user fee or work/own a business in the city, and then other nonresidents.

Members discussed legal limits and possible equal-protection issues and asked the city attorney for input. Scott (City Attorney) noted councils do not create a constitutional right for the public to speak at meetings—public speaking at council meetings is governed by council rules—and the city can set reasonable rules about order of speakers without violating constitutional protections. Committee members asked staff to draft sign-in language that would require a short attestation on the sign-up sheet (for example: "By signing, I represent that I live or work in the City of Huntington or otherwise pay city user fees").

Committee members also asked for clearer, internally consistent language in the rules about removing disruptive speakers and enforcing decorum. They identified inconsistent wording between the sections governing conduct (section 23) and the section that outlines removal and sanctions (section 26) and asked the city attorney to harmonize them. Points discussed included:
- The chair’s authority to call a speaker out of order and issue warnings, and whether the chair may direct security (sergeant-at-arms or police) to remove a disruptive person immediately when the meeting cannot proceed. Several members said the chair should be able to act to restore order but that removal also should be subject to council vote to lift a restriction if contested.
- Whether a multi-step warning process (a "one warning then vote" or a "three-strike" approach) should be retained or clarified; several members favored a clear warning followed by a motion to restrict or remove if the behavior continues.
- Posting a short, plain-language rules-of-conduct statement on the sign-in sheet and making physical copies available at the entrance so speakers know expectations in advance.

There were no formal votes on changes to the sign-up or decorum text at this meeting; the committee asked the city attorney to prepare redlined language reconciling sections 23 and 26 and to propose wording for sign-up sheets that distinguishes residents and provides a short attestation. Members also requested additional training in parliamentary procedure; one member recommended a training session with a recognized parliamentary trainer.

Ending note: The committee emphasized the goal is to allow public participation while protecting orderly deliberation; the city attorney will circulate proposed language for committee review.