Raleigh council reviews public-comment rules, debates ban on digital media and timing

Raleigh council members spent more than an hour on Monday debating changes to the city’s public-comment process, including whether to bar video and other digital media from being played during meetings and whether to change the time and length of the city’s dedicated public‑comment sessions.

The discussion produced a clear request from a majority of councilors: staff should draft a policy that would stop the in‑chamber playing of digital videos during public comment while preserving ways for speakers to submit images or materials to the city ahead of time for council review.

Deputy City Attorney Patty (named in materials as the deputy city attorney) told the council of the narrow legal margin that applies when government limits speech in public comment. “One statute, 168.81.1 tells cities that they must have at least 1 period for public comment each month at a regular meeting of the council,” she said, adding that the law allows “reasonable rules” about length and order but also warned that legal and technical risks attend allowing outside media to be shown on city platforms.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford and others said they had heard repeated complaints from residents that public comment had become hard to use: some people said they would not sign up because they could not sit through long comment sessions, or because graphic video presentations made meetings unsuitable for children. “I have had people come to me and say, I will not sign up because I can't sit through 3 hours of public comment,” said Mayor Pro Tem Ford.

Some council members urged keeping an option for visuals while reducing risks. Council Member Silver said she supports allowing pictures or slide decks if they are submitted in advance and distributed to council rather than being played live on the chamber video stream. “I would be favor of not allowing things to be played during the meeting and uploaded, but still providing option for folks to put a visual to their comment because that is helpful sometimes,” Silver said.

A number of council members — including Mayor Pro Tem Ford, Council Members Branch and Lambert Melton — favored a compromise drafted in the discussion: prohibit display of live digital media during public comment but set a clear process so speakers may submit images or short slide decks in advance and have staff provide printed or otherwise safe copies to council.

The council also asked staff to return with a proposal about the timing and length of the city’s public‑comment sessions. Raleigh currently sets aside a three‑hour evening session on the second Tuesday of the month and an hour on a later afternoon meeting; several councilors said that frequency exceeds most North Carolina municipalities and asked staff to explore earlier start times or a shorter evening block while keeping an afternoon option for residents who cannot attend at night. “I would be willing to entertain the part of the proposal that moves the timing of the evening session,” Council Member Patton said.

Members asked staff also to recommend ways to clarify expectations for speakers and the public, for example by requiring sign‑up materials and website pages to explain that councilors do not typically respond during public comment and to describe how staff will follow up for city‑specific issues. Mayor Pro Tem Ford and Council Member Branch said inconsistent responses at the dais have confused community members and raised unrealistic expectations.

What happens next: staff agreed to bring a written proposal for (a) restricting live digital media during public comment while preserving advance submission of images; (b) clearer sign‑up language and a standard mayoral opening statement about the scope of public comment and follow‑up; and (c) options for shortening or shifting the evening public‑comment block. The council asked staff to include proposals that preserve accessibility for residents who rely on public comment as their primary way to reach the council.

Ending

The council did not vote on changes at the retreat; instead members asked staff to return with an actionable draft for a future council meeting. Several councilors asked that staff also collect basic data — for example, historical counts of speakers and how many times meetings ran to a full three‑hour slot — to help measure the impact of any future changes.