Multiple residents challenged Somers Points name-and-address practice during the public-comment period and accused the city solicitor of revealing a speakers identity in a previous meeting.

An anonymous commenter told the council they had been required to give their name at a prior meeting and said the state law does not require providing a name or address. "The lawyer went as far to tell me that the state requires me to give my name and address. That's false," the commenter said and added, "You misled your counsel."

Another speaker, using a self-identified pseudonym, criticized the policy on constitutional grounds and cited U.S. Supreme Court decisions. That speaker referenced cases by name, saying earlier precedent had protected anonymous political expression: "...McIntyre versus Ohio Elections Commission [1995] ruled against forcing citizens to identify themselves before speaking. It violated the First Amendment." The speaker also mentioned Tally v. California (1960) and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Stratton (2002) in arguing that anonymity can be protected speech.

Members of the public and several speakers framed the practice as chilling free expression because the city posts meeting videos publicly. Speakers urged council members to stop requiring or broadcasting personal addresses and to reconsider how the city enforces speaker-sign-up procedures.

Council staff noted the city has a policy requiring accurate names and addresses for the record; during this meeting the mayor and clerk enforced the practice for some speakers, while other speakers identified themselves only by a pseudonym or declined to provide an address. There was no council action to change the policy at the meeting; public concern was recorded but no formal direction to staff was adopted.

The council closed the public-comment period after multiple speakers and returned to the agenda. No legal opinion from the city solicitor was read into the record during the public-comment exchange.