This commentary is by Tom McKone of Montpelier, a former English teacher, principal and library administrator. Years ago, he chaired the Worcester Selectboard for five years.
The recently dropped charges against a man who was arrested for refusing to stop speaking at a Montpelier City Council meeting didn’t have anything to do with free speech: The point was whether we support local elected officials in their efforts to maintain order at public meetings.
Washington County State’s Attorney Michelle Donnelly and the ACLU of Vermont did not come down on the side of protecting either democracy or free speech for everyone.
The June 2022 incident that led to the man’s arrest followed years of council frustration with his verbal attacks on city officials and his refusal to follow basic protocols, including time limits. He had been given a written warning that expressed concern over his “increasingly disruptive and verbally aggressive” behavior and that told him to keep his distance from city officials during meetings and not to touch city equipment.
He had been given a second written warning that instructed him not to communicate directly with the now-former assistant city manager, not to go into her office, and not to sit near her at public meetings. The evening he was arrested, after he exceeded the two-minute limit, he repeatedly ignored demands from the mayor to stop speaking.
The ACLU’s 12-page amicus brief superfluously expounds on the importance of free speech and portrays city officials as getting carried away in trying to maintain the time limit on public comments. It ignores context, the ongoing, long-term behavior issues, and the fact that the councilors welcome public comments throughout meetings, as they go through the agenda.
In dropping the case, Donnelly said that, after reviewing the video, she determined that the man did not commit a crime because he did not substantially disrupt the meeting. VTDigger reported that City Manager Bill Fraser wrote in an email, “I suspect all public bodies would welcome clarity about removal of individuals who are disrupting meetings or failing to comply with meeting (standards).”
Robert’s Rules of Order, also known as parliamentary procedure, is the basis for maintaining order and ensuring fairness at meetings. At a general Town Meeting, all voters can fully participate in discussions, make motions and vote. In meetings of elected bodies and committees, those officials have full participation rights; the public can speak, but not make motions or vote.
Vermont’s Open Meeting Law enhances the goals of parliamentary procedure, stating, “the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to express its opinion on matters considered by the public body during the meeting, as long as order is maintained.” It also reinforces that the chairperson runs the show.
The new documentary “Backlash: Misogyny in the Digital Age,” which had its first U.S. screening at the Statehouse on Feb. 7, includes an interview with linguist Laurence Rosier of the Free University of Brussels about how harassment affects women.
“These women will be the target of even more insults if they speak out publicly,” Rosier says. “If they hide and say nothing, they’ll be spared. But they’ll lose their freedom of speech.”
Isn’t that one aspect of a larger problem? We have all been in situations — at work, in school, in meetings or in social gatherings — where aggressive, rude, larger, domineering or intimidating people take over. Parliamentary procedure seeks to limit the power of those people and to make sure that softer-spoken, polite, smaller, and humble people have just as much chance to participate.
Supporting inappropriate behaviors — in the name of free speech — undercuts the freedom of speech of many Vermonters who believe in dialogue and cooperation and who are uncomfortable with conflict or afraid to speak up, out of fear of being targeted.
We should be protecting everyone and not elevating the loudest or most aggressive. We need the courts and those arguing on behalf of free speech to recognize the harm that unrestrained speakers and over-the-edge speech does to our democratic institutions, and the injustice they do to the many others whose free speech they inhibit.
Placing some idealized concept of one person’s public speech rights over public order fosters continuation of the male-dominated world and is particularly harmful to women and marginalized groups, their potential to participate in elective or appointed office, and their comfort, safety and willingness to exercise their free speech rights.
When an individual refuses to abide by common social norms and asserts that limitations are not for them, they, themselves, are jeopardizing their speech rights. We should not blame city councils, town selectboards, school boards or other local governing bodies for standing up to them.
We can’t get enough people to serve in local government, and we can’t keep some good people who step up. Across the state, many people are afraid to speak at local meetings or at Town Meeting.
We need to enforce the expectation of order and civility at public meetings, so that all Vermonters will feel that those meetings are for them. If citizens don’t feel safe and welcome, they won’t speak up, and we will have allowed their freedom of speech to be taken from them.