Halpin was wrong to silence a critic at a public meeting

Government officials do not get to decide that criticism is permissible only when it is expressed in words, tones and ways they find agreeable.

That principle should have guided Riverhead Town Supervisor Jerry Halpin during the public comment portion of the July 7 Town Board meeting. Instead, Halpin cut off Calverton resident Dawn Zebroski, directed that the audio feed be silenced and had a police officer escort her from the meeting room.

The speaker was angry. Her criticism was personal and pointed. But anger is not disruption, and harsh political speech does not lose First Amendment protection merely because the official being criticized considers it insulting, unfair or offensive.

There are limits, of course. A presiding officer may enforce reasonable time limits and rules necessary to conduct an orderly meeting. A speaker who shouts over others, refuses to yield after her time has expired or otherwise prevents the meeting from continuing may be ruled out of order and, after appropriate warnings, removed.

But at last week’s meeting, Zebroski did none of those things. She was speaking during the “open comments” portion of the meeting. She had about 10 seconds left on her three-minute clock. She was reading from a prepared statement. Halpin said he saw that her temperature was rising when he cut her off. Maybe so. But she wasn’t shouting. judge for yourself: Watch the town meeting video here.

Halpin appeared to react not merely to the manner of Zebroski’s presentation but to the substance of her criticism. Cutting the audio compounded the problem. The people watching remotely were prevented from hearing what was happening in a public meeting just as the confrontation reached its most consequential point.

Due to a recent injury which has had me temporarily sidelined, I could not attend last week’s meeting in person. I watched it online. Once the audio was cut and the speaker moved off camera, I could not determine whether she began shouting or was otherwise disrupting the proceedings. But the police officer visible in the aisle remained calm. No other officers appeared on screen to assist him. The speaker quickly joined him and they walked out.

Those limitations matter. They are why I am not declaring that the supervisor violated the law. But what was visible and audible before the feed was cut raises serious First Amendment concerns — and the town should be required to explain why silencing the broadcast was necessary.

This incident does not occur in a vacuum.

Zebroski has written repeatedly to town officials and appeared at the podium during nearly every Town Board meeting to raise concerns about an encounter she had with a Highway Department employee last summer — an issue she maintains is still unresolved. Town officials have not publicly addressed her complaints, and she has repeatedly said that no member of the board has responded to her privately. She is persistent — and adamant.

I know what it’s like to sit on the receiving end of angry and sometimes deeply personal criticism at a Town Board meeting. I served one four-year term on the Riverhead Town Board, from Jan. 1, 1988, through Dec. 31, 1991. During that time, the board considered rezoning the town’s agricultural land to reduce the maximum development density from one dwelling unit per acre to one dwelling unit per five acres. Riverhead farmers and the Long Island Farm Bureau went ballistic. We heard from them at meeting after meeting, often late into the evening. And it stung.

That did not give the supervisor the right to cut them off or have them ejected. More than three decades later, I cannot swear that no speaker was ever ruled out of order during those debates. But I do not remember anyone being removed merely for angrily criticizing the board. Listening to criticism — even criticism we believe is unfair or undeserved — is part of the job.

In any case, decorum rules cannot become tools for suppressing a viewpoint. That is especially important during a public comment period, which the town has opened for residents to address their government. Once officials create such a forum, they cannot selectively silence speech because it is hostile to them.

The town recently faced a claim arising from the removal of another resident from a Town Board meeting on Nov. 7, 2024, when Aquebogue resident Ron Hariri was removed by police at the direction of then-supervisor Tim Hubbard.

Hariri was speaking about the proposed town budget during the Town Board budget hearing when he was escorted out. Hariri, an attorney, filed a notice of claim against the town, seeking $10 million in damages, but has not yet commenced a lawsuit. He said last week he has three years to file a lawsuit under federal civil rights law and still intends to do so.

The recurring question is whether Riverhead’s leaders understand the distinction between actual disruption and speech they simply do not want to hear.

Public officials have no right to be protected from criticism. They may answer it, reject it or ignore it. They may enforce neutral rules that allow meetings to proceed. But they may not use “decorum” as a pretext for expelling critics or cutting off public access to their words.

A Town Board meeting is not the supervisor’s meeting. It belongs to the public.

Police officers should not be put in the position of enforcing a political official’s intolerance for dissent. Nor should town employees controlling the broadcast be directed to silence a public meeting without a compelling and clearly articulated reason.

The proper response now is not defensiveness. The Town Board should review exactly what happened, preserve the complete recording, explain who ordered the audio cut and clarify the standards that will govern future removals.

The First Amendment was not written to protect polite praise. It exists chiefly to protect speech that those in authority would prefer not to hear.