Dover City Council adopts rule edits, keeps five-minute public comment after residents object

The Dover City Council on Jan. 14 approved a package of editorial and procedural changes to its council rules, keeping the public forum speaking limit at five minutes after several residents and councilors urged that reducing the time would curb public participation.

Alan Kranz, a Dover resident, used his public comment to press for clearer voting and recusal language in the rules, recommending the removal of existing abstention language and replacement with three short sentences: that councilors are expected to vote on all matters, that councilors should recuse themselves rather than abstain when a conflict exists under the charter and Chapter 21 of the ordinances, and that individual councilors decide whether they have a conflict. Kranz also noted a typographical reference to “Chapter 22” in the packet that he said should read Chapter 21 and cited reliance on the twelfth edition of Robert's Rules of Order as a source of vague language.

Kathy Russell (303 Washington Street) and other residents urged the council not to shorten the public forum. “Considering that the average homeowner in Dover pays more than $10,000 a year in property taxes, we deserve the full five minutes to voice our concerns,” Russell said. Matthew Freeman of Whittier Street called the change “a 40% muzzle on the people who fund this government,” arguing that three minutes is too short for substantive remarks. Councilors said those public comments informed their deliberations.

During a line-by-line review of a redlined, seven-page packet of proposed edits, councilors discussed several stylistic and procedural items. They agreed to preserve language clarifying that ordinances and resolutions set for public hearing be briefly introduced by staff and that council members have an opportunity for initial questions. On the placement of public comment at workshops, councilors reached consensus to continue offering a forum at the start of workshops and allow the presiding officer discretion to offer additional comment time after presentations when appropriate.

Councilor Carmichael explicitly stated support for retaining five minutes for public hearings and forums, saying that the time is not excessive and that the council can always suspend rules if meeting volumes warrant shorter comments. Multiple councilors echoed that position, and the presiding officer summarized a council consensus to retain the five-minute limit while preserving the presiding officer's authority to adjust time limits based on attendance or topic complexity.

Councilors also discussed allowing the presiding officer — or the city manager, at the presiding officer's invitation — to provide factual responses to questions raised by speakers, with some members expressing caution about immediate responses and the potential effects on decorum and perceptions. The council agreed to keep consolidated language in a single location in the rules for clarity and to correct the typographical reference from Chapter 22 to Chapter 21.

A motion to adopt the amended rules "as discussed" was made by Councilor Granfield and seconded by Councilor Carmichael. After brief additional discussion about considering written proposals for changes to voting and recusal language suggested during public comment, the council voted; the presiding officer announced the vote “appears to be unanimous.”

The council adjourned the special meeting and planned to reconvene for its regular meeting later that session.