Chapel Hill‑Carrboro board debates tighter public‑comment rules, sends policy back to committee

The Chapel Hill‑Carrboro City Schools board spent an extended portion of its meeting debating proposed revisions to the district's public‑comment policy that would add explicit limits on profanity, "personal attacks" and disclosure of confidential student information.

Board members, the policy committee representative and legal counsel traded sharply different views about how the district should balance free speech with a need to keep meetings orderly. Brandy, speaking for the policy committee, said the draft sought to update governance rules and remove the requirement that public commenters state a home address, and urged clarity around civility and topics allowed for public comment. Legal counsel Eva told the board that courts have allowed viewpoint‑neutral time, place and manner restrictions and that prohibitions on profanity and personal attacks have been upheld by appellate courts, but she urged clearer language on confidential student information and recommended writing rules that avoid viewpoint discrimination.

Several members objected to broad language. Board member Barb called the draft "a First Amendment nightmare," saying terms like "profane" and "vulgar" are not well‑defined and could leave the chair put in the role of policing vocabulary. Another member, Meredith, said the provision risked chilling speech and urged striking the most prescriptive sentences. Other trustees said they had experienced staff being personally attacked at meetings and want a clear policy the chair can point to when interjecting to restore decorum.

The policy committee members and others suggested compromise language: preserve a statement promoting civility and decorum while substituting narrower, legally grounded prohibitions (for example, barring harassing or personally targeted comments about an identifiable individual) and adding qualifiers such as "to the extent required by state law" or "within available funding" where appropriate.

Rather than adopt a final version, the board agreed to send the draft back to the policy committee for further revision and to return with language that better balances legal risk, enforceability and the board's desire for an accessible forum for community input. The item will be revisited in a future meeting.