Council debates shifting public comments; motion withdrawn pending legal review

Chair (S1) reopened a standing question about where public comment should appear on the agenda, asking whether comments should occur only at the start of meetings or immediately before each item. Council members raised competing priorities: some said front-loading comments gives every speaker a chance, while others warned that limiting comments could conflict with open-meetings rules and deny late-arriving residents a voice.

"If [people] are not here at a certain time, you don't submit something in writing, you cannot speak," Council member (S6) cautioned, urging study of open-meetings law to avoid civil exposure. Multiple council members and residents countered that the public needs a chance to address items when they are being discussed, not only at the very start.

Two residents addressed the council during the discussion. A resident who gave their address as 212 White Street (S8) argued the public should retain an opportunity to speak at the time agenda items are addressed. Arthur Lee (S10) asked what happens to non-agenda items and how late-arriving citizens can be heard.

After extensive debate and a roll-call process on a motion to eliminate the end-of-agenda public comment period, the mover withdrew the motion and Chair (S1) said the item will be added to the next agenda so the city attorney can provide guidance. "I will add that item to the next agenda," Chair (S1) said, and the council agreed to solicit constituent input until that meeting.

Why it matters: The placement of public comment affects whether residents can respond to discussion at the time an item is discussed and whether the council complies with open-meetings requirements.