At a special meeting on Aug. 21, 2025, meeting participants discussed retaining outside counsel to draft an educational document explaining public‑comment and open‑meeting rules and moved to authorize the work by voice vote.

The discussion focused on legal distinctions the document would explain, including differences between public hearings and public meetings and risks of an open‑mic public‑comment format. Speaker 1 said the attorney, Mr. Lowe, emphasized First Amendment principles and the difference between a public hearing and a business meeting. Speaker 1 said, "open mic is just a death trap," and described the proposed document as an "educational document" intended for public distribution and for future officials to consult.

Speaker 1 told the group he had asked Mr. Lowe for a firmer price “than the 750,” and said Mr. Lowe told him he would cap the cost at $500. Speaker 1 also said Mr. Lowe normally charges $175 per hour and had said he would use a reduced rate of $150 for small towns. The participant described the document as explaining how the governing body may adopt its own rules and procedures and as something to keep "for posterity."

Participants discussed three options presented in the conversation: retaining an open‑mic format (which the group viewed as risky), keeping limited public comment at the start of meetings with a fixed time limit, or adopting a policy similar to the local school board’s approach of limiting on‑meeting interruptions and handling constituent concerns through staff or one‑on‑one contacts. Speaker 1 said the document would outline those choices without creating a confidential record.

After the discussion, a motion was made and seconded to proceed with the written guidance; a voice vote followed. Speaker 1 said they would notify Bryce to relay the message to the attorney.

The group did not adopt specific new public‑comment rules at the meeting; participants discussed options and directed staff or designees to proceed with obtaining the written guidance.