C. Can a public body limit comment?

We know of no law allowing or prohibiting a public body from limiting comment.

Those bodies covered by the municipal code provisions guaranteeing a right of participation are afforded only a "reasonable" right to be heard, implicitly subject to reasonable rules of the body or rulings of the chair.

Yes.  A public body may limit public comment during an open call by imposing reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.  See A.R.S. §38-431.01(H).  “Although it is legally appropriate to stop a speaker who is reasonably perceived as threatening, disorderly, or impeding the fair progress of discussion, public bodies must be cautious not to halt a speaker because of the speaker’s viewpoint.”  Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. No. I99-006.

Whenever a citizen has a statutory right to participate in a meeting, the agency can establish local rules regarding comments, as long as the citizen has a reasonable opportunity to participate. See Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 93-299. For example, an agency can limit participation to only a specific time period during the meeting. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 93-052. An agency would violate the FOIA if the circumstances for public participation would allow for only “uninformed” comments. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-230 (discussing complex contracts made with private contractors).

Yes. Under the Bagley-Keene Act, a body does not have to listen to comments on matters that are not on the agenda or that were already considered in a public meeting where there was an opportunity to comment. Cal. Gov't Code § 11125.7(a).

Under the Brown Act, the public is entitled to comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, as well as any agenda item.  Cal. Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a). See Galbiso v. Orosi Pub. Util. Dist., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1063, 1080, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 788 (2008). Under the Brown Act, the legislative body does not have to listen to comments on items that are not within its subject matter jurisdiction. 78 Ops. Cal. Att'y Gen. 224 (1995). And, as under the Bagley-Keene Act, a legislative body under the Brown Act does not have to listen to comments on items that were already considered in a public meeting where there was an opportunity to comment. Cal. Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a).

An agency may limit public comment on items described in the agenda to the time when those items are being considered. Olson v. Hornbrook Cmty. Servs. Dist., 33 Cal. App. 5th 502, 528, 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236 (2019).

In addition, under both Acts, the body may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the above provisions are carried out, including but not limited to regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated to each individual speaker for public testimony or comment on particular issues. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 11125.7(b) (Bagley-Keene Act), 54954.3(b) (Brown Act). A legislative body of a local agency may regulate the time, place and manner for speech to ensure orderly discussion. Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936 F. Supp. 719 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (Brown Act); see, e.g., Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach, 27 Cal. App. 5th 150, 177, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 81 (2018) (rejecting plaintiff’s First Amendment facial and as applied challenge to board’s rule limiting public comment to three minutes); Olson, 33 Cal. App. 5th at 528 (holding limitation on public comment on agenda items to when those items are being considered was not an unreasonable regulation).

No provision in the Open Meetings Law addresses this issue.

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

Yes, so long as such restrictions are not content based. See Del. Op. Att’y Gen., No. 05-IB01 (Jan. 3, 2005) (time limit on public comment permissible, but content restriction not).

Not specifically addressed.

As noted above, the Florida Supreme Court has indicated that there may be no right to comment where committees are carrying out certain executive functions which have traditionally been conducted without public input. Where there is a right to comment, it seems clear that the public body has the right to adopt reasonable rules and policies to ensure the orderly conduct of public meetings. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. §  286.0115(2)(b); see also Jones v. Heyman, 888 F.2d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[T]o deny the presiding officer the authority to regulate irrelevant debate and disruptive behavior at a public meeting — would cause such meetings to drag on interminably, and deny others the opportunity to voice their opinions.”).

Georgia county commissions and city councils and like bodies, e.g., school boards, typically have rules affording a limited right of public comment at meetings. See, e.g., Cardinale v. City of Atlanta, 290 Ga. 521, 522, 722 S.E.2d 732, 734 (2012) (noting the existence of rules governing public comment at Atlanta city council meetings). The state’s Open Meetings Act does not address the issue of public comment.

Boards may provide for reasonable administration of oral testimony by rule. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-3 (2005).

The Open Meeting Law does not specifically address this question. Idaho governing bodies generally try to impose time limits on comments, however.

Many public bodies limit the number of speakers on an issue, or limit each speaker to 5 or 10 minutes.

Yes, because the law does not provide a right to comment.

No statute or case address whether a public body can limit comment.

There is no statutory right to comment.

No provision in the Open Meetings Act deals with public comments at meetings. Generally, a public agency that allows comments from members of the public may limit the duration of such comments and may require comments to pertain to the issues addressed in the meetings. However, limiting comments based upon viewpoint of the commenter would run the risk of violating the First Amendment.

Only as may be specified by a public body's reasonable rules and regulations. The Open Meeting Law does not prohibit removal of someone to prevent "willful disruption" that would "seriously compromise" the "orderly conduct" of a meeting.  La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42:17(c).

Many public bodies set time limits for public comment, but those limits are usually flexible (within reason).

N/A.

Not addressed.

N/A.

There is no discussion regarding this under the statute. Each public body may establish its own rules regarding procedure.

Public body may enact rules and regulations regarding those attending public meeting. § 25-41-9.

Typically, yes. There is no Sunshine Law provision on this.

Public bodies in Montana sometimes limit comments on an ad hoc basis depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an issue. There are no cases addressing the reasonableness of such limitations.

Presumably, a public body can limit comment if the public body determines that this is a reasonable rule or regulation regarding the meeting. Neb. Rev. Stat. §84-1412(2).

C. Can a public body limit comment?

The Attorney General has opined that a public body may create reasonable rules and regulations regarding written remarks of members of the public. The rules and regulations may not discourage public comment. Nevada Op. Att'y Gen. 2005-08. The Attorney General believes that limits must be viewpoint neutral.

Yes.  N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(a) specifically states that “Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the discretion of a public body to permit, prohibit, or regulate the active participation of the public at any meeting.”  However, that section provides that a municipal governing body and a board of education must set aside a portion of every meeting, the length of which is to be determined by the governing body or board of education, for public comment on any governmental issue or school district issue that a member of the public feels may be of concern to the residents of the municipality or school district.  This section is, however, limited to meetings of municipal governing bodies and boards of education.

Yes.

See above.

There is no provision in the Open Meetings Law. Each statute providing a right of public comment has its own provisions. See Section V.A. above. The public comment provisions for city, county and school boards permit the bodies to adopt reasonable rules regarding the time allowed per speaker, the designation of spokesmen for groups of people taking the same position, and providing for the maintenance of decorum.

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue (not applicable).

When a public body voluntarily establishes an open forum, then any content-based restriction must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling governmental interest, applying principles contained in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1998 OK AG 45. A public body may, however, limit public comment to items listed on the agenda. If no limits are placed on the subject matter of public comment, then an agenda item for “public comments” is sufficient notice that citizens may speak on any issue. 2002 OK AG 26.

Yes, reasonable time limits and opportunities can be established.

If it finds that there is “not sufficient time,” it may defer such comment. One court suggested that comment should be limited to “current business” and not the over-broad standard of “matters of concern” that “may” come before an agency. See Baravordeh v. Borough Council of Prospect Park, 706 A.2d 362 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998).

Presumably not. However, the OML allows the removal of any person who willfully disrupts a meeting to the extent that orderly conduct of the meeting is seriously compromised.  R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(d).

Yes, so long as the limitation is content-neutral e.g., the imposition of a time limit. A content-specific restriction would likely constitute unconstitutional prior restraint.

Yes

Yes.

A governmental body may limit comment since there is no right to comment at open public meetings. See Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. JC-0169 (2000). If a governmental body wishes to allow members of the public to speak at its public meetings, it may adopt reasonable rules consistent with relevant provisions of law allowing them to do so. Id. (citing Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. H-188 (1973); Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. LO-96-111 (1996)).

There is a public right to a “reasonable opportunity” to comment and “express opinion” on any matter under consideration at an open meeting, “as long as order is maintained” and “subject to reasonable rules established by the chairperson.” 1 V.S.A. § 312(h). One of the limitations frequently implemented by the chair of the board is a limitation on the amount of time for each speaker.  The right to comment does not apply to any quasi-judicial proceeding. Id.

Generally public bodies, as a matter of practice, enforce time limits and insist that tone and content be within bounds of civil discourse.

A governing body "may make and enforce reasonable rules for attendance and presentation at any meeting," but this power is limited to "any meeting where there is not enough room for all members of the public who wish to attend." W. Va. Code § 6-9A-3.

A public body may limit comment.