Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Steve Griffin | Tribune file photo) Interested parents and other members of the public listen to Doug Larsen, center, as he speaks during the public comment portion of a Canyons Board of Education meeting to consider whether to approve new boundaries for middle schools. Some governments are considering changes to public comment periods out of concern that there could be legal costs to defending against defamation suits arising from such free-form sessions.
Are public comment periods too risky for Utah's local governments?
Slander suits » Litigation over exercise of free speech could sap taxpayer dollars.
First Published Aug 24 2013 01:01 am • Last Updated Feb 14 2014 11:33 pm

Whether it’s concern about a neighbor’s reptile collection, dirt on a political opponent or beefs about the federal government, citizen remarks can offer some of the most colorful and candid portions of local government meetings.

While some view the public comment period provided by many city and county council meetings as a sacred right, one risk manager has suggested it also poses a costly liability and local governments might want to consider, as one option, doing away with it.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

Johnnie Miller, chief executive officer for Utah Counties Indemnity Pool (UCIP), recently raised such concerns to the Box Elder County Commission and also to the Utah Association of Counties.

Miller fears that the gripe-fests can put local governments at risk for unwittingly violating Utah’s Open and Public Meetings law or entertaining slander that becomes part of the public record.

"The Open Meetings Act requires them to list all the items they’ll discuss at least 24 hours ahead," Miller said, "and yet the public wants them to have this open period where they can talk about anything."

While an anything-goes comment period is not required, many counties and cities routinely offer the option. And the law states that a public body may discuss a topic raised by the public that is not listed on the agenda, but may not take final action on it.

"Doing away with the public comment period is just one option to avoid risk," Miller said. Other recommendations include training officials to be cautious in their responses.

The cost of free speech » Government entities have immunity when it comes to defamatory statements from the public, but Miller said they still have to expend taxpayer dollars to get lawsuits thrown out of court.

The three-member Box Elder County Commission has included public comment periods during its meetings for the past two years. But now, it’s considering Miller’s advice, said Stan Summers, a commissioner who took office in January.

story continues below
story continues below

"Our biggest problem right now is that people are using it as a platform for their agendas, for anything from Obamacare to Agenda 21," Summers said. "I don’t think we can stop gun sales to Egypt."

Jason Rose, legal counsel for the nine-member Salt Lake County Council, said members have added a public comment period to work sessions in addition to their business meetings in hopes of increasing citizen feedback.

"We have no specific parameters limiting what people say," Rose said, "but if they get too disruptive, the Open Meetings Act allows us to have them removed."

If citizen comments begin to interfere with conducting the public’s business — "a few people hijacking the bus for everybody" — it might be something they’d address, Rose said.

During his 24 years serving Davis County, Clerk Auditor Steve Rawlings said that public comments have been a routine part of their commission meetings.

"I can’t remember a problem," Rawlings said. "It’s a format where free speech is embraced, and I’ve never seen our commissioners feel differently about that."

John Petroff, former West Point mayor and current chairman of the Davis Commission, said that nixing public comment altogether would be a significant departure from the past.

"At this point, I’d like to make sure that citizen voices get heard," Petroff said.

Davis County is one of 24 Utah counties that participate in UCIP’s property and liability programs, while Cache, Grand, Salt Lake, Summit and Utah counties do not.

More speech, not less » Salt Lake City media attorney Jeff Hunt believes that Miller’s liability concerns are unfounded, since government bodies have significant immunity under the law and cannot be held liable for defamatory remarks during public comments.

Next Page >

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.