Council Committee defers rule changes on public comment, asks JSO and counsel for sign-size and legal guidance

The City Council Rules Committee debated proposed amendments to Rule 4.505 on Jan. 6 that would clarify limits on electioneering in council chambers, ban some audience disruptions and set size limits for demonstrative signs. After extended discussion the committee deferred the item and asked staff to gather additional legal and public-safety guidance.

The proposal sought to do three things: clarify that “campaigning” or “electioneering” is not allowed in city facilities where city employees are working; tighten the rules about disruptive behavior in the audience (including prohibiting fingernail snapping, whistling and other attention-getting noises); and permit limited demonstrative signs at the podium while banning sign waving from the audience and proposing a maximum size for signs presented at the podium.

Why it matters: The rules would be a time, place and manner restriction on speech in a limited public forum (the council chamber). Several council members and legal staff emphasized the need to write enforceable, objectively measurable language so the rule can be applied consistently and withstand legal scrutiny.

Highlights of the discussion Mary Stifopoulos of the Office of General Counsel briefed the committee. She said the code already contains a provision barring campaigning in city facilities where city employees are working; the proposed rule language would expand and clarify what “campaigning or electioneering” means, including activity that relates to a candidate, party or ballot initiative affecting Duval County voters. Stifopoulos also described the rule’s effort to distinguish signs held by a speaker at the podium from signs waved in the audience.

Council concerns and next steps Committee members raised several concerns that led to deferral: - First Amendment risk and legal clarity: Members and counsel said the rule must be a legally defensible time, place and manner restriction; they asked counsel to produce clearer examples and to cite controlling case law so the committee can assess vulnerability to legal challenge. - Safety and enforcement: Council members asked JSO and the sergeant-at-arms to assess at what size a sign would obstruct sightlines or present a security concern. Multiple members urged that enforcement be objective (measurable sign dimensions) rather than purely discretionary. - Scope and process: Several council members proposed delaying final action so staff could bring demonstrative sign mock-ups (1 sq. ft., 2x2 ft., 18x24 in.) and a written legal memo and for JSO to review safety implications.

The committee’s action: The Rules Committee voted to defer the bill and asked the general counsel to produce a legal memorandum and to work with Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office on a recommended maximum sign size and enforcement protocol. The committee also asked staff to provide a plain-language summary for the public explaining the difference between permitted speech and prohibited campaign activity in the chamber.

Ending: Committee members emphasized that the deferral does not eliminate the underlying concerns about decorum and safety; it moves the item into a fact‑gathering phase intended to produce objectively enforceable rules.