Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Procedures Decorum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council postpones contentious rules change after debate over signs and 'snapping'
Summary
Council members debated a proposed amendment to council rules (2024‑0871) that would limit certain actions in chambers — including banning snapping fingers — and allow small signs. The amendment passed initially but failed to meet a supermajority requirement, was reconsidered and then postponed to Feb. 11 for further review.
Jacksonville City Council members debated a proposed change to council rules on Jan. 28 that would tighten decorum rules in chambers, ban specific disruptive behaviors and allow small signs of a limited size. The ordinance (2024‑0871) drew sharp discussion about free‑speech limits, enforcement and whether the new language duplicated existing city code.
The measure originally included language that would have broadly prohibited “political campaigning” in chambers; council members ultimately amended the text to retain the status quo on political campaigning, to add snapping fingers and waving signs to a list of prohibited disruptive behaviors, and to allow limited‑size handheld signs (roughly 21 by 21 inches) under new rules. Council Member Boiling, who described the amendment in committee, said the change was intended to codify existing practices and allow reasonable expression while preventing disruptions.
Several council members raised constitutional and enforcement questions. Council Member Freeman warned the council about First Amendment concerns and called the proposed sign‑size limits subjective; she urged either enforcing existing code or changing the municipal code, rather than layering subjective rules. Council Member Johnson asked staff to clarify whether an existing city ordinance already prohibits campaigning in public buildings; the Office of General Counsel cited section 350.305 of the city code, which bars political campaigning in public buildings near working public employees. Some members said the rules committee had vetted the measure but acknowledged members who were absent might want more time.
Procedural actions unfolded on the floor: the amendment initially recorded a 12‑to‑5 vote in favor, but the Office of General Counsel advised the chair that amendments to council rules require a two‑thirds vote of the full council (13 votes), so the chair announced the item failed for lack of a supermajority. A motion to reconsider was made and passed, returning the item to the floor. After further discussion the council voted 15‑2 to postpone the ordinance to the Feb. 11 meeting to allow additional review and participation by absent members.
Supporters said the language clarified and codified long‑standing decorum practices (banning snapping, codifying sign size) and responded to security concerns raised by staff. Critics said the council should either enforce existing prohibitions that already appear in city code or make clearer, less subjective code changes rather than a rules overlay.
Council members and the general counsel agreed to provide additional legal guidance and to give absent council members a chance to review the final language before the Feb. 11 reconsideration.
