PORTSMOUTH — Despite objections from all eight residents who spoke on the topic, the Town Council voted 4-3 Monday night to institute a three-minute time limit for citizens when they address the panel on a particular issue.

In a separate vote, the council unanimously agreed to require residents who want to place an item on the agenda to identify the specific things they’d like to discuss as well as provide any supporting or referenced documents or facts.

Both changes, proposed by council member Leonard Katzman, did not sit well with several members of the audience. Some residents charged the council with attempting to stifle free speech and block opposing viewpoints.

Mr. Katzman, however, said his proposals were intended to make the process of coming before the council more transparent and fair, and to maximize productivity. He also said the rules were meant to be guidelines, and the council could choose to suspend them under certain circumstances.

“Every member of the public should have the right to be heard,” he said of the three-minute rule, which he said was consistent with past council practices. “If someone speaks for half an hour, that prohibits someone else to be heard. I would anticipate we would be flexible, but wanting to move things along.”

Mr. Katzman also said he was trying to keep a campaign promise. “Why do some people allowed to go on and on and on?” he said people on the campaign trail kept asking him.

A timer will be used for public comment on an agenda item, and a citizen may speak a second time on the same agenda item for a maximum of two minutes if he or she is presenting a point not previously made, and all others have already had a chance to speak. Anyone who wishes to exceed the time limit will need to present information to the town clerk before a meeting and it will be forwarded to council members for consideration.

Gertrude Patenaude was one of several residents who opposed both the time limit and agenda rule, saying they flew in the face of citizens’ fundamental right to free speech. She quoted the Rhode Island Constitution: “No law abridging the freedom of speech shall be enacted.”

Others said the amount of time a citizen has to make his or her point should be left to the discretion of the council president — in this case, Kevin Aguiar. 

“To discourage the public because of a time limit does a disservice to the town,” said former council member David Gleason. “I personally view this as a bullying tactic.”

Local resident David Reise said a timer would put too much pressure on people who aren’t used to speaking in public. “It’s not a game show,” he said.

Larry Fitzmorris, president of the taxpayer group Portsmouth Concerned Citizens, said there are many complicated issues that come before the council — the financial audit, budget, pension benefits among them — and often times citizens need extra time to make arguments and ask followup questions.

“It appears this (proposal) would eliminate any substantive discussion on any financial matter,” said Mr. Fitzmorris.

He asked whether the new rules would be in effect for the annual budget hearing and any other single-topic hearings. “I believe hearings are a different animal under state law and would supersede these rules,” Mr. Katzman replied.

Tom Grieb, a member of the Harbor Commission who often comments at council meetings, said it’s often difficult to express pertinent facts within three minutes. To make the point that a more flexible time limit could benefit everyone, he pointed to a June 11, 2018 council meeting.

At that gathering, Mr. Katzman was a private citizen appearing before the council to speak on an agenda item about nonpartisan elections. Mr. Katzman spoke for about 20 minutes, Mr. Grieb said, and he provided the council with a great deal of pertinent information based on his experience as a member of the Charter Review Committee.

“In short, he provided information not readily available to the council or other residents that could not possibly be provided in three minutes,” said Mr. Grieb, who added that cutting off residents after three minutes will only frustrate them and lead to less citizen participation at town meetings.

Council president opposes

The three-minute rule was opposed by Mr. Aguiar and council members Keith Hamilton (the panel’s previous president) and Andrew Kelly.

“I’m not in favor of imposing times, but I am in favor of the president using discretion to limit things to three minutes, four minutes,” said Mr. Aguiar. “I just ask that when you come up to speak, you stay on point and not go off the rails.”

Mr. Hamilton said on bigger issues that draw large numbers of people to meetings, residents should be allowed more time to speak. It would be “rude” to use a timer and then cut someone off in the middle of their speech, he said.

Mr. Kelly said during his six years on the School Committee, a two-minute time limit was occasionally used, but at the discretion of the panel’s president. “This is their platform and I’m not going to take it away,” he said.

Mr. Katzman and other council members, however, said three minutes is a reasonable amount of time to make a point, and that the rule will actually help residents focus on the most relevant information. Council member J. Mark Ryan paraphrased a famous quote by Mark Twain: “I am writing you a long letter because I didn’t have time to write a short one.”

Added council member Linda Ujifusa, “This is a reasonable attempt to make it fair for everyone. If we see it’s not working, we can reverse it.” 

After a proposed amendment by Mr. Kelly to leave the time limit to the council president’s discretion failed, the council voted 4-3 to approve Mr. Katzman’s guidelines. Mr. Katzman, Dr. Ryan, Ms. Ujifusa and council member Daniela Abbott voted in favor. Mr. Aguiar, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Kelly were opposed.

Agenda backup

Although Mr. Katzman’s proposed guidelines for submitting agenda items were approved unanimously, they faced the same resistance from residents who spoke Monday. They questioned the council’s motives for instituting the new rule, and said it could impede the free exchange of ideas.

Mr. Katzman and other council members said the rule is intended for transparency’s sake — to help keep the public informed on what will be discussed at a meeting, and to supply the council with enough detailed information so it can make an informed decision.

“When I was president of the council, I had more questions to council members about their agenda items than I did for the public,” Mr. Hamilton said.