Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town tables proposed code-of-conduct resolution after heated debate about free speech and enforcement
Summary
A proposed code of conduct for public participation was introduced and then tabled after extended board debate and public comment that raised free-speech concerns, procedural questions and requests for a public hearing and rewording.
The Clifton Park Town Board tabled a proposed code of conduct for public participation after an extended debate among board members and residents who said the draft risked chilling constitutionally protected speech.
The resolution—introduced by a board member who framed the policy as aimed at preserving orderly, productive meetings—drew sharply divergent views. The introducer said the intent was to encourage civility and “help ensure that town meetings remain welcoming, effective, and respectful for everyone.” The statement cited long-standing frustrations about interruptions, raised voices and behavior that make it difficult for residents and officials to participate.
Opponents warned the draft included language that could be used to eject or silence residents expressing sharp criticism. One board member said elements of the draft were “beyond the pale” and questioned whether the language would hold up to legal scrutiny. Another argued that threats to remove constituents from meetings had been used repeatedly and that the draft provided an excuse for exclusion.
Public speakers asked for more notice and suggested a public hearing before any final action. A deputy supervisor and several residents said they had not seen final language until the agenda drop and urged the board to either vote it down or table it and craft a revised version with community input.
Following debate, a motion to table the resolution passed on roll call. Board members discussed bringing a revised resolution back with recommended edits (including suggested wording changes provided by outside counsel and requests to remove phrases such as “personal” from the conduct definitions) and the possibility of a public hearing to collect resident feedback before a future vote.
Next steps: the resolution was tabled; several board members proposed working with counsel to draft revised language and to hold a public hearing before returning the item to the agenda.
