Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Everett committee approves amendment to public‑participation rules to align with state court decision
Summary
The Everett City Legislative Affairs Committee voted to favorably recommend an amendment to the council’s public‑participation rules to bring them into line with a recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling; the committee emphasized the chair’s role in stopping blatantly false personal attacks.
The Everett City Legislative Affairs Committee voted on Feb. 26 to recommend changes to the City Council’s public‑participation rules to conform with a recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision. President Robert Van Campan told the committee the amendment simply adjusts language (a red‑line version was provided) to mirror the court’s ruling while preserving the requirement that public comment be “peaceable and orderly.”
The amendment removes or revises the former subsection referred to in the packet as subsection “k,” which previously addressed personal attacks and accusatory statements. Mr. Flood, who worked with President Van Campan on the red‑line draft, told the committee the change is intended only to bring the rules into legal alignment and is not meant to curtail orderly public comment.
Councilor Smith asked how the body should respond if a member of the public makes a blatantly false allegation about a councilor or an administration official. President Van Campan said the responsibility would fall to the chair of the council to stop a conversation that includes a blatantly false allegation. “If there is something said about a member of the administration or a member of the city council that is blatantly false … the onus is to me on the chair of the city council to … stop that conversation from happening,” he said.
The committee moved and seconded favorable action and approved the amendment by voice vote. The committee packet contained a red‑lined version of the rules that committee members said they reviewed during the meeting.
The amendment will be forwarded to the full City Council as the committee’s recommended action. The committee did not identify any additional staff reports or external approvals required; members emphasized the change was intended to reflect the court ruling rather than expand restrictions on speakers.
The committee adjourned after addressing remaining items on the agenda.
