Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public speakers defend Protect FMB as town attorney warns council on legal risk of curtailing committee members' rights
Summary
At the April 21 meeting residents defended Protect FMB's appeal of a Seagate decision while the town attorney advised caution about removing advisory members or restricting their speech, citing potential constitutional risks.
Residents spoke during public comment on April 21 about ongoing controversy surrounding Protect FMB and the Seagate appeal. Tom Brady, who identified himself as a resident and president of Protect FMB, urged the council to stop characterizing his group negatively and said their appeal of a local decision is a legitimate review of administrative action. "We're not anti growth. We're pro process," Brady said.
Several council members later returned to the topic when attorneys submitted differing written opinions about whether council could remove advisory members or restrict their political activity. Town Attorney Nancy advised councilors that enforcing a policy that would require advisory‑committee members to forfeit certain associations or donations could pose legal risks. "If you are arguably curtailing their constitutional rights, then that is a different analysis," Nancy said, urging caution.
Why it matters: Council members discussed whether the town could lawfully remove or sanction advisory‑committee members who donate to or associate with groups involved in litigation against the town. The town attorney said any attempt to condition committee service on the surrender of constitutional rights (for example, freedom of speech or association) would raise legal concerns and could expose the town to litigation.
Public voices: In addition to Brady, resident Ed Rood said he supported Protect FMB’s right to advocate but criticized anyone who donates to a lawsuit against the town while serving in a volunteer advisory capacity. Rood asked Nancy to publicly explain the legal differences people had written her about; Nancy summarized the legal risk and the difference between moral judgments and legal enforceability.
Council reaction: Members said they want to respect both public participation and the limits of the law. Some councilors said they’d prefer to craft clearer, narrowly tailored rules for advisory assignments rather than broad prohibitions that could be legally vulnerable.
Ending: The town attorney recommended against any ordinance or policy that would require advisory volunteers to give up constitutional rights; council members asked staff to consider policy language and to rely on existing ethics rules where possible.
