Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pueblo council debates public-forum name-drawing, agrees to test digital lottery and to draft a sign restriction for chambers
Summary
Council reviewed the citys public forum rules, agreed to pilot a computer-based random draw to select speakers when more than six sign up, and voiced a working consensus to prohibit signs and large stakes inside council chambers pending a staff-drafted policy.
City Clerk Tracy Stoler briefed Pueblo City Council on Feb. 22 on a public-forum policy first written in 2023 that limits speakers in the council chamber to six on most nights and uses a random draw to select among larger groups.
The clerk described the policyand why the procedure was adopted: the sign-up sheet historically drew a crowd that argued about who arrived first and disrupted meetings; the policy instead lets everyone sign up and conducts a random draw when there are more than six speakers.
Why it matters: Councilors and staff discussed ways to keep public comment accessible while maintaining decorum. The debate quickly moved from the name-draw method to rules about signs, clothing and other on-site displays in council chambers.
What council did: On the name-drawing, the council agreed to try a computer-based random-draw tool rather than a paper sign-up order. On the sign question, attorney Harley Gifford reviewed constitutional limits and the difference among forum types; after extended discussion council members across a range of views expressed a working consensus in favor of drafting a chamber rule that would ban signs or oversized placards inside council chambers while clarifying that demonstrators may use signs outside the building or bring visual materials up to the lectern for public forum presentations.
Legal context: Deputy City Attorney Harley Gifford told council the legal standard depends on whether the space is a "limited public forum," a "designated public forum" or a traditional public forum. He said courts generally permit viewpoint-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner regulations in limited public forums such as city hall chambers and he recommended a complete prohibition on signs inside chambers as the most defensible policy if council wants a bright-line rule.
Other clarifications: The clerk and councilors reaffirmed that public hearings are treated differently (no sign-up limit); that council can suspend rules to allow more speakers on particular nights; and that the five-minute public-forum time limit established at earlier retreats had been retained after prior discussions.
Next step: Council asked staff and the city attorney to draft a short, posted notice (for use at entrances and in the agenda packet) that would explain the rule: no signs or placards inside council chambers; materials may be brought to the lectern during public forum when the speaker is called; disruptions will lead to removal. Staff will return to a future meeting with proposed language for council adoption.
Ending: Council members pressed for clarity about enforcement (security and police will be involved) and asked staff to craft brief, clear, viewpoint-neutral wording that can be posted and defended in court if challenged.
