Council president clarifies public-comment guidance amid resident objections about free-speech limits

A Westland resident raised concerns at the Oct. 20 council meeting about a council president’s earlier request that attendees refrain from campaign-style remarks during public comment. The resident said the remark violated the official oath to uphold the Constitution.

Resident Mister Warren told the council: “you violated your oath to the constitution when you made those remarks.” He urged the council to defend free-speech rights after the president had asked speakers not to campaign from the lectern during city business.

Council President Mike McDermott responded at length, saying his earlier comment was intended to prevent the public-comment period from becoming a forum for campaign speeches and to avoid legal penalties the city has faced in the past. McDermott said the city previously had council members fined by the state for using official meeting time for campaign activity and that his instruction was meant to keep the meeting focused on city business. He said, in part, “my comments were merely intended to reflect that because every election season, we end up with people who do come up to the lectern to promote candidates, promote themselves running for a particular position.”

McDermott emphasized that the public retains the right to wear campaign clothing, speak about elections elsewhere and exercise free-speech rights; his intent, he said, was to maintain the meeting as the official business session of the council and to avoid opening “a can of worms” by allowing campaign statements during the three-minute public comment slots.

Ending: The council did not adopt a new written rule at the meeting; McDermott’s comments were offered as a clarification of practice and an explanation of past enforcement actions rather than as a newly imposed ban on political expression in the chamber.