Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and selectmen debate "present to speak" rules and when officials may correct the record
Summary
A lengthy public-comment discussion centered on whether board members should correct factual errors during "present to speak," with residents urging less filtering and some selectmen arguing legal obligations and factual corrections require responses; proposals included an initial time-limited Q&A, more detailed agendas, and training for chairs.
The Board opened a continuation of a prior discussion on revising the town's "present to speak" procedure and allowed extended public comment. Residents and board members disagreed over whether officials should rebut or correct statements made during public comment.
A resident identified as Peter (a local resident who spoke during public comment) said he favored a one-way public forum where the board does not engage or rebut individuals during "present to speak." He said two-way exchanges discourage participation and create an "unequal playing field" because the government controls facts.
The First Selectman and other board members responded that correcting inaccuracies on the public record is part of their responsibility and noted legal obligations and accountability to state law and the Freedom of Information framework. "Correcting facts is going to continue to happen," one board member said, framing factual corrections as necessary so the public record remains accurate for history and for residents who consult minutes or recordings later.
Discussion produced several concrete proposals: replicate the School Building Committee's model of a short, time-limited interactive Q&A at the start of meetings; retain a second, reactive "present to speak" at the end of meetings; set per-speaker time limits for the interactive portion; post clearer agenda packets and contact emails so residents can submit materials in advance; provide training for chairs on managing civility; and allow brief factual rebuttals (15 to 30 seconds) where necessary.
Speakers raised practical concerns about legal risk: several board members said they must consult the town attorney or FOI guidance before changing participatory rules to avoid exposing the town to liability. Commenters also urged more outreach and easier access to committee email addresses on the town website. A resident reported a sightline/safety issue at the Myrtle/Willington Hill merge and the First Selectman said he would refer the matter to CT DOT after receiving a written report through the selectman's office.
What happens next: Board members asked staff to compile ideas and return proposals at the next meeting. The meeting record shows a recommendation to sketch options for an initial Q&A period, explicit agenda enhancements, and guidance on when factual corrections are permitted during public comment.
