Fort Worth council rejects amendment to cut public-comment opportunities, approves 2026 meeting calendar

Fort Worth City Council on Tuesday defeated an amendment to reduce opportunities for public comment and then approved the proposed 2026 meeting calendar (Resolution 25-5420) as presented by staff.

Councilman Chris Nettles moved to keep the current twice-monthly public-comment slots and to add a public-comment period to each daytime meeting; Councilwoman Deborah Peoples seconded the amendment. After about 40 minutes of debate and public testimony, the amendment failed. The council then voted to approve the calendar recommended by staff.

Why this matters: The action narrows the number of standalone public-comment sessions compared with 2025 and changes when and how residents can address the full council. Dozens of residents urged the council to preserve or expand public-comment access, saying public forums are a primary means for ordinary Fort Worthians to register concerns directly with elected officials.

Public testimony and council debate: More than a dozen residents and regular public-comment speakers addressed the dais during the discussion on the calendar. Speakers argued both for and against reducing the number of standalone public-comment meetings. Resident Bob Willoughby told the council that the change “takes away free speech,” and other residents warned the move would privilege well-funded or well-connected interests over ordinary residents.

Several residents speaking in favor of preserving public comment described personal reasons they prefer in-chamber remarks: that smaller attendance at separate comment sessions can be calming for some speakers (Chris Wood), that public comment is “one of the few unfiltered ways people can hold their government accountable” (EJ Carreon), and that public comments place issues on the official, public record (Patrice Jones).

Council discussion focused on access, staff workload and the practicalities of meeting logistics. Nettles said: “I still cannot stomach to reduce the public comment,” and urged adding a day-meeting comment period in addition to evening sessions. Council members who opposed the amendment said the current schedule balances daytime and evening access and that council members remain reachable through constituent meetings and direct contact. Mayor Pro Tem Carlos Flores and Councilman Michael Crane stressed alternate ways residents can reach council members and committee-level public-comment opportunities.

Outcome and next steps: The amendment to add public comment to each daytime meeting failed on a council vote (motion failed; vote details not specified in the record). The council then approved Resolution 25-5420, the calendar proposed by staff, by a separate vote (motion carries). Several council members urged staff to return with options or clarifications, and multiple members asked that the city continue to make in-district and small-group engagement available.

Votes at a glance: Motion to amend calendar (add public comment to day meetings; change start times) — mover: Councilman Chris Nettles; second: Councilwoman Deborah Peoples; outcome: failed (vote not specified). Motion to approve calendar as recommended by staff (Resolution 25-5420) — outcome: approved (vote not specified).

Context and details: City staff told the council the proposed 2026 calendar would schedule 10 standalone public-comment meetings, down from 15 scheduled in 2025; staff noted some 2025 sessions were shortened or canceled because of quorum problems. Nettles’s proposed amendment would have restored the twice-monthly structure used in prior years and would have moved some start times; the amendment text proposed changes to Section 1 (weekday start times) and Section 3 (add a public-comment section to day meetings).

What council members said next: Several council members — including Councilwomen Mia Hall and Elizabeth Beck and Councilman Nettles — urged preserving or expanding public-comment access. Council members who opposed the amendment said residents have other ways to communicate with their representatives, that committee meetings include public comment for those topics and that very long, single-day agendas in past council schedules made late-day public comment less effective.

The council did not adopt changes to the calendar beyond approving the resolution as presented by staff. Council members asked staff to monitor impacts and return to work session with clarifications if needed.