School board updates public‑comment rules after Eleventh Circuit decision

The Flagler County School board on Monday revised its public‑participation bylaw following a recent Eleventh Circuit decision affecting how local governments manage public comment. The board adopted language making clear it will accept public input both on items before the board and on non‑agenda matters, set a default three‑minute speaking time and tightened rules on demonstrative materials and recording.

The change follows the court ruling referenced in the draft and explained by board counsel, who said the Eleventh Circuit’s decision requires “viewpoint neutral” public‑comment policies and limits the board’s ability to screen speakers by perspective. Attorney Delaney summarized the decision and its effect on local practice: “we're treating this like a city commission meeting or any other meeting. We're not treating this like sort of a warm and fuzzy school environment.”

Board members told staff they want clear, administrable rules. The newly approved language (by consensus) does the following: - Accepts public input on agenda and non‑agenda items (option selected by the board); attendees who do not list a subject on the sign‑up form will be placed in the non‑agenda comment period. - Sets a default maximum of three minutes per speaker, unless a board majority votes to change the time limit before the public‑comment period begins for that meeting. - Prohibits delegation of an individual’s allotted time to another speaker (the draft language requiring delegation was removed). - Removes the draft proration option (dividing allotted total time among all sign-ups) from the policy text; the board retained the authority to adjust time limits for a given meeting by a pre‑comment vote. - Allows audio and video recording of the public meeting by members of the public subject to conditions intended to prevent obstruction, interviews during sessions or disruptive commentary; the presiding officer may warn or stop speakers for profanity, threats, or disruptive conduct.

Board members debated practical limits. Some favored a fixed cap on the number of speakers or a fixed total comment window; others said setting that in policy risks appearing to suppress speech and preferred leaving flexibility for the board to set limits before the start of comment when crowds are large. The board agreed on a compromise: three minutes per speaker as the baseline, with any meeting‑specific adjustment to be made and announced before public comment begins.

The board directed staff to update sign‑up forms and public materials to reflect the change — including an explicit encouragement that groups organize and designate a single spokesperson when many people share a common statement — and to bring the revised bylaw back for formal adoption in the board’s policy tracker.

The revisions mirror language recommended by counsel and by the board’s policy vendor to align local rules with federal appellate guidance while preserving the board’s ability to manage meeting logistics.

The discussion was framed by attorney guidance and by board members’ repeated concern that enforcement be viewpoint neutral and applied consistently; speakers stressed that obscene or threatening speech may still be curtailed under state criminal provisions. The board asked staff to circulate the revised draft to the public and to add the change to the agenda for formal adoption at the next meeting.