Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates codifying public comment rules; some members push to allow comments at full sessions
Summary
Committee members and members of the public debated whether to codify public comment rules in the legislative manual and whether public comment should be allowed at full legislature meetings as well as committee sessions. The item was discussed but no final rule was adopted.
The Rules Committee spent substantial time on Feb. 17 debating whether to formalize public comment procedures in the legislative manual and whether the public should be permitted to comment at full legislature sessions as well as at committee meetings.
Supporters of codification said making public comment a written rule protects access and prevents future changes that would limit participation. "Codification is about protection," a public speaker said, arguing that written rules prevent future officials from removing the public's voice. Several speakers from local arts groups and other community organizations urged formal rules so residents could weigh in when policy affecting services or funding is considered.
Some legislators said the work of developing policy and examining details ordinarily occurs in committees, which already accept public comment; making the full session a place for public comment could slow the legislature's business. "The work gets done in committee," one legislator said. "I don't think we should be having debate or public comment" at full floor sessions, the legislator added, describing the full session as the meeting where votes are taken after committee review.
Other members pointed to past instances when proposals were taken directly to the full legislature without committee review; those members argued that codifying public comment for the full body would ensure the public an opportunity to be heard even if an item bypasses committee.
The committee considered a resolution, originally drafted to cover both committee and full meetings; after discussion members proposed narrowing the language to require committee public comment and asked staff to refine the language for review. A motion to adopt the resolution as drafted (committee and full) was moved but not seconded during the meeting.
Public commenters described practical reasons for broader access: remote participation options used by local towns and the ability for residents who cannot attend in person to participate by livestream or phone. Committee members asked staff to prepare a final draft that balances public access with meeting efficiency and that defines reasonable time limits or subject relevance for comments.
The committee took no final vote; members directed staff to redraft and return with recommended language for a future meeting.
