Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Huron council skirmishes over proposed public‑comment rules; motion to postpone fails
Summary
Residents and councilmembers sharply debated a proposed amendment to public‑comment rules that would prioritize resident and business-owner comment at the start of meetings. City attorney said the draft does not ban props or costumes; a motion to postpone final consideration failed at roll call.
Port Huron Mayor Anita R. Ashford and the City Council spent the bulk of their Nov. 10 meeting debating a proposed change to the council’s rules of procedure that would restructure when residents, business owners and nonresidents may speak during public comment.
The first reading of Resolution 2 would prioritize Port Huron residents and business owners to speak at the start of meetings on agenda items and move nonresident comments to the end. Opponents at the meeting—individuals and advocates who said they frequently speak on behalf of regional or vulnerable groups—argued the change risks violating free‑speech protections and Michigan open‑meetings guidance. “Limiting public comments before agenda items to residents and business owners is unconstitutional,” said Rachel Farquhar, a public commenter, citing Supreme Court precedent and state law.
City Attorney Todd Shouty responded to concerns about props, costumes and content, saying the proposed changes “have nothing in there that address presentation items or props” and that the rules aim to be viewpoint‑neutral while clarifying longstanding decorum limits, including a profanity standard tied to FCC broadcast rules. Shouty told council that sign‑up would be available until the meeting begins — doors open 30 minutes before the start — and said courts and attorney‑general opinions allow municipalities to set reasonable sign‑up and identification requirements for public comment.
Councilmembers were divided. Councilmember Archibald and others said they support measures to preserve resident voices at the front of the meeting; Councilmember Payton and Mayor Ashford said the change risks separating residents from nonresidents and could chill speech. After extended debate, a motion to postpone final consideration of the amendment was put to a roll‑call vote; the clerk recorded the motion as failing. The record shows Councilmember Payton voted No, Archibald Yes, Lamb Yes, Mosrack Yes and Mayor Ashford No; the clerk announced the motion failed.
The council did not take final action on the amendment at the Nov. 10 meeting. Under the city’s rules, amendments to the council’s rules and procedures cannot be finally adopted at the same meeting in which they are introduced; the council discussed next steps for further review and possible edits.
