Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wausau mayor restates public-comment rights; aldermen debate whether item was properly agendized
Summary
At the Feb. 11 Wausau Common Council meeting, the mayor reviewed public-comment rules and legal limits on speech at meetings, prompting aldermen to dispute whether the mayor's remarks were sufficiently agendized under council rules and open-meetings guidance.
At the Feb. 11 meeting of the Wausau Common Council, the mayor opened with a statement reminding the public and council members that public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on matters of public interest and that the council can adopt only reasonable regulations such as time limits.
The mayor cited prior guidance, including a city-attorney memo dated Oct. 9 and examples such as California’s Brown Act, and said the council’s usual limit of three minutes per speaker helps ensure fairness. He told speakers to address remarks to the chair and said the chair may provide brief factual information but should otherwise avoid back-and-forth with members of the public.
The statement drew a point of order and pushback from several alderpersons who said the mayor’s remarks amounted to a council discussion that should have been more specifically agendized. “According to open meetings laws that agendized items… I don't know that this item is sufficiently agendized,” Alder Lukens said, arguing the public and council need clearer advance notice when internal rules are discussed.
City Attorney Alba Killian told the council that points of order are for the chair to rule on and that, under the council’s Rule 5 (order of business), agendas often set a general order — but that does not automatically resolve whether a specific discussion is properly noticed. “When any of you make a point of order, it is up to the chair to rule on that point of order,” Killian said. She added that the order-of-business language is general and that the mayor may offer communications and recommendations under the existing agenda structure.
Other alderpersons called for a clearer process. Alder Gisselman said discussions among council members following a presentation should be agendized so the public knows the topic in advance. The mayor acknowledged the concern and said he would avoid allowing the exchange to “get out of hand” and move on to the rest of the agenda.
Why it matters: The exchange highlights the tension between providing the public an opportunity to speak on issues not on the written agenda and the council’s obligation under open-meetings principles to give adequate notice of substantive internal deliberations. The council's practice of limiting speakers to three minutes and directing remarks to the chair was reiterated as the commonly accepted mechanism to balance those concerns.
No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting; the discussion concluded without a motion to amend council rules or the agenda-notice process.
