Coppell, Texas — The Coppell City Council on Aug. 12 approved an ordinance that spells out conduct rules for public comment at city meetings and gives the presiding officer authority to warn and remove disruptive speakers, with the council retaining the power to review and potentially suspend speaking privileges.

The ordinance amends Chapter 1, Article 1-10 of the city code and adds a new section governing presentations by citizens. Council member Michael Nevills moved to approve the ordinance; Council member Hina Hinojosa Smith seconded the motion. After a 3-3 tie among council members, Mayor Wes Mays cast the deciding vote in favor of adoption.

The council said the changes are intended to regulate behavior rather than speech, to protect meeting participants and staff, and to provide an objective procedure for dealing with repeated disruptions. City Attorney Robert "Bob" (last name not provided in the record) told the council that the draft was modeled on rules used by other Texas jurisdictions and that it focuses on conduct, not content. “As your lawyer, I would advise you to have some rules regarding conduct. I’m not worried about speech. I’m worried about people’s conduct,” Bob said during the work-session discussion.

What the ordinance does and how it would be enforced

Under the adopted language, the presiding officer may warn a speaker whose conduct violates the rules; a second warning can curtail the speaker’s time; and a third instance of continued disruptive behavior can result in removal from the meeting by the sergeant at arms. If a council member requests it, the council may later consider a formal penalty — including a temporary suspension of speaking privileges (council discussion referenced a six-month suspension as an example) — after a review process handled by the city’s legal counsel and with an opportunity for the affected person to be heard.

Mayor Wes Mays described the staged enforcement during council debate: “I would warn the person that they’re not behaving according to our guidelines and if they then conform, they’re welcome to continue speaking. The second time, I would ask them to sit down… And then if they refuse to remove themselves… that’s when I would ask the sergeant in their arms to remove them,” Mays said.

Supporters, precedent and legal framing

Supporters on the council said the written rules make expectations clear to speakers and give the presiding officer tools short of immediate removal. Council member Nevills said the rules provide protection for both officials and the public and stressed that any mayoral ruling can be challenged by the council under Robert’s Rules of Order. “Any decision that the mayor makes can be challenged by any member of this council,” Nevills said.

City staff and the attorney cited legal precedent for upholding reasonable conduct rules in limited public forums. Staff noted that Dallas County’s similar rules were challenged in court and the county prevailed; staff also said Plano settled an out-of-court case. The city attorney framed the approach this way at the work session: the city is treating the council chamber as a limited public forum and imposing rules on conduct rather than speech.

Concerns voiced by dissenting council members

Several council members opposed the ordinance as written, citing free-speech concerns and the risk of litigation. Council member Matthew said he was not in favor of the rules in their current form. “The way the rules are written today, I’m not in favor of it,” he said during the council meeting.

Other members warned the policy could be applied unevenly or could be misunderstood when speakers whose first language is not English use unfamiliar words or phrases. Council member Vijay (first name used in the record) and others asked for safeguards so that cultural or language differences would not lead to wrongful ejection. Several council members also expressed worry that adopting an enforcement policy could expose the city to legal costs even if the rules are defensible in court.

Process safeguards built into the ordinance and practice

City staff and council members described several procedural limits on the presiding officer’s authority: removal follows stepped warnings, the council may review and vote to impose a suspension, and the removed person would receive notice and a chance to be heard. The attorney emphasized the ordinance does not create a new, unilateral power: “It’s a policy that we are following and therefore, if this person is upset… they have an issue with the policy we have in place,” he said. Council discussion also repeatedly referenced the ability to “appeal the decision of the chair,” which, if invoked, triggers a council vote to uphold or overturn the presiding officer’s action.

Next steps and implementation

The ordinance will be added to the city code and posted to the council’s public materials. City staff said the change follows multiple work sessions and public discussion earlier in the year. Officials cautioned that, while precedent favors reasonable conduct rules in limited public forums, the city cannot completely eliminate the risk of lawsuits. City staff said the city will follow the new procedures and monitor their application, and that the code can be revised if the council finds it is being applied too broadly or unfairly.

Context

The issue grew out of several months of contentious public comment at council meetings, including one incident in which a speaker’s conduct prompted on-site confrontation. Council members described a desire to protect staff, council members and members of the public — including children and school groups who attend meetings — from intimidating or disruptive behavior. The debate included references to prior local cases and to the city charter’s grant of authority to the presiding officer to maintain order.

What the ordinance does not change

Council members and the city attorney stressed that the ordinance does not bar criticism of city policy or disagreement with elected officials; rather, it sets behavioral standards for how those comments are presented. The ordinance’s text and the council discussion indicate that content-based restrictions remain disfavored and that enforcement targets conduct such as harassment, threats, or actions that materially disrupt the meeting.

The council adopted the ordinance on a 4-3 vote, with Mayor Wes Mays casting the tie-breaking vote in favor. Opponents said they may return to amend the language to tighten definitions and reduce litigation risk.