As Buffalo Township considers limits to public comment, many neighbors already have rules in place

At a recent special meeting, Buffalo Township Supervisors began consideration of a resolution that would place limits on public comment at meetings. But as the officials mull the potential new rules, many neighboring governments already abide by similar regulations.

The resolution, which was tabled at an unusual morning meeting late last month, came after a public hearing for two proposed solar farms took several hours as around 35 residents voiced opposition to developer SolAmerica’s plans.

In response, Buffalo Township Solicitor Brian Farrington drafted a resolution regulating comment periods, saying it is “probably necessary” to implement limits for the public.

The proposed resolution would set a 10-minute oral comment limit for each agenda item, allowing two minutes for each resident or taxpayer to speak.

That means about five speakers could publicly address each agenda item.

While the proposal is more restrictive than other local governments, it would not be entirely novel.

Just across Buffalo Creek in Freeport, residents are restricted to a three-minute speaking period while addressing borough council.

And less than a mile away, the Freeport Area School Board designates a 30-minute public comment period with five-minute limits on individual speakers.

Nearby Harrison and Tarentum similarly limit comments on individual agenda items to three minutes per speaker. The Highlands School Board does the same.

The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records said local governments are permitted to impose those sorts of regulations, citing a three-minute limit as a common rule.

But it said those limits may not always be adequate during more drawn-out discussions.

“It can be a good practice to allow for flexibility in any policy imposing time limits on public comment, taking care to ensure that the agency does not show partiality to some commenters over others,” according to Open Records Office website.

Farrington said the resolution is still in its draft stages, and supervisors remain in very early discussions.

By the end of the process, the solicitor said, he expects the current language of the resolution will change.

Melissa Melewsky, a lawyer at the Pennsylvania News Media Association, said a three-minute limit is fairly standard among agencies with regulations. But limits should be put in place only to facilitate public comment, not restrict it.

Rules for comment periods, she said, should only be put in place if they’re necessary and appropriate, leaving the door open for adjustments if more speakers seek the podium than rules allow.

“I think it’s important for any public comment limits to have flexibility,” Melewsky said.

While the draft resolution does allow the board chairperson to extend the speaking period, Melewsky said leaving that choice up to the discretion of a single person could prove problematic.

Though basic comment regulations are common, Melewsky said the fact that the limits are being considered in the midst of a controversial community issue could be a red flag.

Residents’ constitutional right to be heard cannot be “curtailed for convenience,” she said.