Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance.public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates revisions to public‑comment rules after 11th Circuit ruling
Summary
Legal staff proposed edits to Policy 1.03 to align with the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in the Brevard County case, removing vague 'personal comments' bans and clarifying what conduct (e.g., obscene speech, threats) may be restricted; board members debated word choice, time limits for members' discussion items, and whether to keep certain legal phrasing.
Senior attorneys walked the board through proposed edits to Policy 1.03 prompted by the Eleventh Circuit decision in the Moms for Liberty v. Brevard County Public Schools case, which found portions of Brevard’s public‑comment rules unconstitutional.
"We looked at our policy 1.03 through the lens of the court's ruling, to really analyze any language that could be perceived as problematic," said a senior attorney, explaining staff recommendations to replace a blanket prohibition on "personal comments" with a narrower relevancy standard and to remove an undefined ban on "vulgar language" in favor of language prohibiting "obscene speech or conduct" and threats.
Board members debated the tradeoffs between legal precision and public clarity. Board member Lane argued that phrasing such as "subject to relevancy and the other requirements and limitations" is redundant and confusing for the public and proposed striking it; general counsel urged retaining certain legal terms like "viewpoint discrimination" because of the clarity they provide in a court context.
Members also discussed operational rules for board debates: several members objected to strict numeric limits on how often and how long elected members can speak during discussion items, citing the need for robust deliberation and concerns about inadvertent Sunshine Law violations; the chair and counsel described options for clarifying how to request additional time (motion and majority vote) and for preserving the chair's discretion in managing meeting flow.
Counsel said they would prepare revised draft language and the sample addenda discussed so the board could consider specific wording at future meetings.
