Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Governance Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panama City public‑comment rules prompt heated public and commissioner debate; commission agrees to reopen comments and study changes
Summary
Public speakers and commissioners clashed over recent changes to citizen comment procedures; after multiple residents urged restoring broader in‑meeting public comments, the commission agreed to allow open public comments for agenda and non‑agenda items and to workshop the rules at a future meeting.
A contentious discussion over public‑comment rules dominated a portion of the Panama City Commission meeting on June 24 as residents and commissioners disagreed over limits on non‑agenda remarks and how the rules were adopted.
Several members of the public said recent changes effectively restricted citizens from speaking about matters not on the meeting agenda. Jerry Parker of the Beacon of Bay County said the change “is stifling the citizen from being able to come up here and voice their opinion on anything that involves the city,” and called the approach “not citizen focused.” Jody Moore urged the commission to remain open to in‑person remarks: “You should always be open as public servants to allowing people to come up here and address you.”
Commissioners and the city attorney confirmed the current rules require public participation prior to votes on agenda items and that the commission may set rules for orderly meetings. Commissioner Lucas said it was appropriate to allow citizens to speak during the meeting and suggested returning to clearer, more specific motions in the future. City Attorney/Clerk (staff) explained the rules circulated were loosely based on Lynn Haven's charter review procedures and that the commission may amend its rules; she said the board may adopt more restrictive procedures if the commission votes to do so.
After public comment, the commission agreed by consensus to allow open public comments on agenda and non‑agenda items at the current meeting and to workshop changes to the rules at a later meeting. Staff advised the commission that public participation is required for items on which the commission plans to vote; commissioners asked staff to bring back clarified rules and potential amendments for formal action at a future meeting.
Speakers who criticized the change included local residents and community activists; commissioners emphasized a need to balance orderly meetings and broad public access and directed staff to return options and clarifications.
