Riverhead’s new meeting rules: a solution in search of a problem

We’re all for decorum and good manners. People should treat each other with dignity and respect, even when they disagree. 

The cesspool that is “social media” provides ample evidence of the need for decorum in the conduct of public meetings. Can you imagine the atmosphere at a Town Board meeting if people behaved the way they do on Facebook? 

That said, it’s not clear that good manners can be legislated any more than common sense can be legislated.

And those who attempt to mandate good manners by adopting rules that limit speech in a public meeting — as Riverhead Town Board members say they intend to do — must tread very carefully.

A Town Board meeting is considered a limited public forum. In such a forum, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on speech without running afoul of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

But when restrictions on speech are content-based, they are subject to “strict scrutiny,” meaning the government must prove that such a restriction serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. 

A rule that prohibits “partisan political commentary,” as the new rules of procedure now being considered by the Town Board would do, is a content-based restriction. What is the compelling governmental interest in restricting political commentary? Preventing criticism of elected officials is not a compelling governmental interest. 

It’s also vague — quite the opposite of “narrowly tailored” — and its vagueness potentially leads to arbitrary enforcement.  It’s not too hard to imagine a speaker who is running for office or supporting a candidate running for office in opposition to an incumbent being ruled “out of order” and receiving a “warning” followed by an order to leave the meeting — especially if the speaker has the audacity to criticize the man or woman holding the gavel.

Taken as a whole, the new rules being considered seem like a solution in search of a problem. 

People bringing signs to meetings? Is that really something to worry about? We’ve attended some meetings where audience members brought signs into the meeting room. They were, almost exclusively, hand-written signs on 8 ½ by 11-inch pieces of poster paper. Folks aren’t marching around the Town Hall meeting room with billboards. Restrictions on signs are legal if they’re content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate purpose, such as maintaining order, ensuring safety, or preventing disruptions. 

It’s a rare Town Board meeting that draws a crowd — much less a disruptive mob of sign-carrying, indecorous rabble-rousers. 

So what is this actually all about? Town Board members get rankled by a room full of residents attending a meeting to criticize what the board is doing, or has done, or plans to do. By and large, they don’t want to hear criticism. They want accolades. And however courteous a speaker may be — take Barbara Blass, for example, who is unfailingly polite  — it’s the criticism that counts. 

If a speaker takes a harsh tone, the annoyance is visible on many board members’ faces. 

If a speaker is outright antagonistic — or has been antagonistic in the past — well, it’s time for a police escort.

Eliminating the ability to address the board via Zoom, except during public hearings, seems aimed only at limiting opportunities for criticism. In reality there are only a handful of people who use Zoom to speak at Riverhead Town Board meetings. And two of the “Zoom regulars” typically have opinions the board members don’t want to hear — namely, Kathy McGraw and Ron Hariri, with Hariri having the Zoom feed terminated on more than one occasion because what he had to say was deemed unacceptable.

To be fair, the new rules would specifically allow criticism. 

“Criticism of Town policies, procedures, programs, or services or acts or omissions of the Town Board shall not be considered improper,” the rules say. (Well, there’s a relief!)

“Unless,” the document continues, “the speaker fails to maintain decorum and courtesy, including refraining from personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane remarks, whereupon the Chair of the meeting may call such speaker to order as set forth hereinabove.” That “hereinabove” stuff is a reference to the text that says the speaker can be told to sit down and even be kicked out if they don’t comply.

Bottom line: the meeting chairperson decides if the criticism is out of bounds. We’ve already seen how that works out from time to time.

Look, criticism is not easy to take. But it comes with the territory when you hold elective office in a small town. Instead of looking to prevent criticism, officials should be grateful that Riverhead still has some citizens who are engaged, some people who care enough to attend or watch meetings, people who want to participate by offering their opinions and observations.  

Is this not what makes America great? Citizen involvement. The right to speak one’s mind. The opportunity to be heard. 

Or at the very least, to be politely tolerated.

We don’t think that’s too much to ask. The Town Board intends to adopt these rules at its next meeting and we urge the board to remove these unnecessary — and legally problematic — restrictions before they do.