Speak Your Mind: Salem City Council Loosens Rules On Public Comment

SALEM, MA — You can swear if you really want to swear.

Although, it is still preferred that you don't.

The Salem City Council is loosening some of its rules around public comment at its meetings following a Supreme Judicial Court ruling earlier this month that limits the restrictions that elected bodies can put on what people say and how they say it.

Among the changes approved during Thursday's Committee of the Whole meeting, and then again at the regular City Council meeting, are that those who choose to give public comment are no longer restricted to items on that night's agenda and no longer prohibited from personal attacks against elected officials.

"The only thing we can say is that (public comment) must be orderly and in a peaceable manner," City Council Chair Megan Stott said in reading off the changes. "The use of vulgar and profane and disrespectful language (prohibition) — we're removing that.

"Although, we're hopeful that the public still follows that one, and us as well."

The SJC ruling comes in the case of a Southborough woman who said she was unfairly silenced at a 2018 public hearing because the Chair of the meeting said her comments violated that board's rules against saying something determined to be "slanderous" against the body.

The SJC ruled that elected officials must be open to criticism during public comment — respectful or otherwise.

"Although civility can and should be encouraged in political discourse, it cannot be required," the SJC said in handing down the ruling.

Those wishing to give public comment at Salem City Council meetings must still sign up to do so in advance either online or in person up to 30 minutes before the meeting. The Council retained the right on Thursday to place time restrictions on the length of comment — up to three minutes per speaker, or 15 minutes in total, unless the Council president or a consensus of the Council determines otherwise, as to prevent what would amount to a filibuster.

"We can't limit topics," Stott said of the guidance she received from City Solicitor Beth Rennard on the ruling's implications, "but we can but guidance around the time and place. ... We want to continue to have our cordial meetings, and have good discourse within our meetings."

She also noted that the public comment is not intended to be a back-and-forth debate between the person who speaks and the Council or a specific Councilor.

Councilor Lev McClain said that while he agreed with the SJC decision on this case: "I don't want to see our public comment period become sort of a wild, wild west situation and find out that it has the opposite effect of what the SJC would want. Rather than give the public a good, solid right to comment as part of our meeting, I don't want it to have a chilling effect on people's willingness to participate because the comments and interactions are so negative and unyielding."

Councilor Ty Hapworth said enduring criticism from residents during public comment is all part of the job.

"It's sort of an American tradition to come in and, if you choose to, be rude to elected officials," he said. "That's something we should have on there and should not limit the public's ability to come in and say what's on their mind for that day — within reason and within a good-faith argument."

While the Council voted on specific changes that were determined to be in violation of the SJC ruling, the matter remains in Committee pending consultation with Rennard on possible further alterations.

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at Scott.Souza@Patch.com. Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)