Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Public Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bradford County adopts new public-meeting policy limiting comments to residents and press
Summary
The commissioners approved Resolution 2026-08 on March 26, 2026, which restricts public comment at county meetings to Bradford County residents, taxpayers and members of the press and caps individual comments at three minutes.
Bradford County Commissioners voted on March 26 to adopt Resolution 2026-08, a new Public Meeting Participation Policy that narrows who may speak during public comment periods and sets procedures for decorum, recordings and speaker identification.
The policy requires that commenters be Bradford County residents or taxpayers or members of the press. Individuals must state their name, municipality of residence and any organization they represent before speaking. Public comment is limited to one appearance per comment period and to a maximum of three minutes per speaker; speakers may not cede or give their time to another person. The policy clarifies that comment periods are not Q&A sessions and that board members are not required to answer questions during the comment period.
The policy also sets decorum rules (no disruptive behavior; the board may adjourn or request law-enforcement assistance for serious disruption) and sets conditions for audio or video recording by private parties, including a 15-minute prior-notification requirement to administrative staff for recording accommodations and a three-foot clearance rule from the board table. The policy cites the Sunshine Act (65 Pa.C.S. § 703–711) as the statutory context for open meetings.
Commissioner Zachary R. Gates proposed extending the public-comment limit to four minutes, but that motion failed for lack of a second. The new policy text was then adopted; meeting minutes record the board voting “aye” to approve the policy.
Public comment at the meeting included an allegation by Walter Woods that an early signing of a Jefferson–Clearfield contract for prison healthcare constituted a Sunshine Act violation; the minutes record the allegation but contain no formal response or remedial action recorded during the meeting.
The policy appears to centralize control over who may speak at county meetings and how recordings are managed; county staff are assigned responsibility for implementing the logistics described in the resolution.
