Springfield subcommittee backs 90-day pilot to move public "speak out" into regular meetings

A Springfield City Council General Government subcommittee voted to advance a proposed 90-day pilot that would put the city's public "speak out" period into the regular council meeting and add a rule barring councilors from engaging in dialogue with speakers during that time.

The pilot, as described by Attorney Moore to the committee, would suspend or amend two existing rules for 90 days: Rule 3 (which governs timing and guardrails for public comment) and Section 5 (the procedural order of meetings). Moore said the trial would allow the council to evaluate whether keeping speak out inside the agenda increases councilor attendance and meeting efficiency, and the council could make the change permanent after the trial or return to the prior practice.

"The 1 legal issue I saw with what we were talking about doing, it kind of comes down to walking the fine line between allowing the full rights of . . . the First Amendment and . . . the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the balancing act of the council's obligation under the open meeting law," Attorney Moore said, urging careful language to avoid content-based restrictions that could be unlawful.

Supporters said putting speak out on the agenda could address low councilor turnout observed during off-agenda public comment. "What happens is we have 1 or 2 individuals coming from public speak out starting at 06:00. We hear them for 2 minutes or in this case, 3 minutes, and now we're at 06:06. And then we got to wait 24 minutes to start our regular meeting," Councilor Jerry Martin said, arguing the change would reduce delays and make it more likely councilors are present when residents speak.

To minimize legal risk, Moore recommended—and the subcommittee adopted by motion—a clear rule that councilors shall refrain from engaging in dialogue or asking questions of speakers during the speak out when it appears on the regular agenda. "That the counselors shall refrain from engaging any dialogue or asking any questions of the speakers during public speak out," Moore restated as the amendment language the committee asked him to draft and cite to the Massachusetts open meeting law.

The subcommittee also discussed operational details to be included in Moore's draft: whether remote participation counts as "present" (Moore said post-COVID practice treats remote participation as attendance for quorum purposes), the pilot's 90-day length, sign-up deadlines for speakers, and how to measure effectiveness (suggestions included comparing sign-up numbers before and during the pilot).

Councilor Victor Davila moved to add the non-participation language to Section 4; Councilor Jerry Martin seconded the motion and the committee approved it by voice vote. The subcommittee then voted to place the amended order and Attorney Moore's memorandum on the full Springfield City Council agenda for March 2 for further debate and a final decision.

Attorney Moore said he will draft the formal amendment language, include an open meeting law citation, and research internal sign-up deadlines and other procedural specifics for the full council packet. The full council is expected to consider the proposal at its next meeting.