North Dakota school boards pushed back on a Senate bill that would require public comment periods during regular meetings of local subdivisions.
Sen. Bob Paulson, R-Minot, said he is sponsoring Senate Bill 2180 in response to complaints he’s heard from around the state. Complaints include public comment being limited to once per year at local government meetings or requirements that comments be approved ahead of time or limited to agenda items.
“These things are currently happening in North Dakota and I believe it is incumbent upon us as legislators to protect our constituents’ ability to redress their government at all levels of our state,” Paulson told members of the Senate State and Local Government Committee last week.
An amended version of the original bill would mandate local subdivisions offer a public comment period during regular meetings at least once per month.
The bill states the local subdivision may only limit the public comment period to the time of each speaker or total time of the comment period, but it may not limit the topic of public comments to agenda items of the current meeting.
KrisAnn Norby-Jahner, general counsel for the North Dakota School Boards Association, said the organization and 168 school boards across the state are opposed to the bill.
“Our public board meetings are not public meetings. They are meetings held in public,” Norby-Jahner said. She added that many school boards already have rules in place to provide for public comments while also limiting outbursts so the boards can conduct their work.
“We maintain the position that these local rules should be controlled at the local level,” she said.
Norby-Jahner said limiting comments to agenda items makes sense because the topics for each meeting are included in public meeting notices to ensure the public knows what is being talked about during the meeting.
“When you open public comment to items that are not on an agenda, the public did not have any notice that those discussions were going to occur,” she said. “And we have very strict notice requirements in our open meeting laws.”
She added public comments on district personnel matters could prejudice school board members who often need to sit in a neutral capacity during non-renewal and discharge hearings.
The bill allows local governments to require that public comments be pertinent to the local subdivision, not interfere with the regular meeting and not be harassing, defamatory, abusive or unlawful.
Comments given by the public may also not include confidential information, such as contract negotiations or information about students. Commenters may be limited to one public comment per meeting.
Kory Peterson, former mayor of Horace and a lobbyist for the North Dakota League of Cities, spoke in favor of the bill. As chair of the Horace City Council, he said he allowed comments from the public and put time constraints on the speakers so the work of the council could proceed.
“Sometimes they would bring up a topic that we had not even thought about, or something we were not aware of at the time,” Peterson said. “So those are good to have when they can be brought up like that.”
Peterson said the North Dakota League of Cities initially opposed the bill because it was overly broad, but now supports it after amendments narrowed the focus.
Sheri Haugen-Hoffart, a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, testified in opposition to the bill. By having only three members of their board, she said a quorum is present during every work session and minor meeting held by the commissioners. She said it would create an undue burden to hold public comment periods during every public meeting.
When informed that the amended bill would only affect local subdivisions, Haugen-Hoffart said the Public Service Commission would not oppose the bill.
Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, chair of the Senate State and Local Government Committee, said the bill will be amended further to try and provide more control to political subdivisions on their public comments policies.
“We understand why people are motivated to want something to outline how this works,” Roers said. “But we want to make sure that it’s not so prescriptive from the state, that it isn’t possible to do your work at the local level.”