Lewisville council debates tightened speaker rules, AV use and time limits

Lewisville City Council members on Tuesday reviewed a staff proposal to revise the city's public-comment and speaker protocol, focusing on time limits, audiovisual access, translator accommodations and safety/privacy measures. The proposal from staff recommends: 10 minutes for applicants on public hearings with a 5-minute rebuttal; 5 minutes for other speakers on public hearings; 3 minutes for visitors forum and regular hearing speakers; double time for speakers using a translator; an incentive to double time if five or more people elect a single spokesperson; and adding a presiding-officer authority to extend time. Staff also proposed requiring speaker presentation files to be submitted in advance (staff suggested two business days) to allow cybersecurity screening. Why it matters: council members said they want rules that are defensible in court, fair to applicants and neighbors, and practical for meeting operations. Several members voiced concern about giving applicants or any group an unbalanced advantage, and flagged a recent court decision involving Austin and the Save Our Springs Foundation as a legal constraint on arbitrary time reductions. During the workshop Jennifer (staff) summarized the recommendation: "Our staff recommendation on this is to allow 10 minutes for applicants on public hearing items, the 5 minutes for rebuttal, and then 5 minutes for all other speakers." Council members then debated fairness between applicants and neighborhood speakers, how to handle large groups and whether the mayor or the full council should be able to extend an individual's time. Council direction and staff clarifications - Time limits: Council expressed informal consensus for keeping applicants' 10 minutes and allowing 5-minute rebuttals, while reducing general visitors-forum time to 3 minutes; multiple councilmembers said they were comfortable retaining mayoral latitude to increase or decrease time at meetings. - Extensions: Several councilmembers requested explicit language allowing council (by motion) to request an extension for a specific speaker rather than leaving extensions solely to the presiding officer. Some councilmembers said they preferred keeping extensions informal (through mayoral questions and follow-up) rather than a formal rule that could be selectively applied. - Translator and spokesperson provisions: Staff will keep the current double-time provision for translators and add a proposed incentive: if five or more people designate one spokesperson, that spokesperson could receive double the usual time. - AV/presentation access and cybersecurity: Staff recommended continuing current practice (applicants may use the AV system; other speakers must submit paper copies) but council asked staff to research how peer cities manage AV access. Staff recommended requiring AV files two business days ahead so the city IT/security team can sandbox-upload and scan files for malware; staff said same-day submissions would be problematic for scheduling and security checks. - Speaker address on the record: Staff proposed requiring speakers to state name and city for the record rather than full street address; the speaker card would still capture the full address for city records. Councilmembers supported limiting the on-camera mention to city of residence for privacy and safety reasons. What remains: staff will draft proposed ordinance language reflecting council direction, including options on whether AV access is allowed for public hearings only or broader items, and whether council requests for extensions should be formal motions or informal requests to the presiding officer. Council asked staff to collect examples from peer cities (including how they screen AV files) and to return with recommended policy text.