Gilbert Town Council is looking to take more control of how people behave at its meetings, including banning personal attacks on officials and citizens.
The proposed restrictions to the Council Rules of Order and Procedure posed during a Feb. 6 study session and it is unclear when the item will move forward for formal action, according to spokeswoman Kailey Latham.
But it already is being criticized.
“I find the whole situation to be ridiculous,” said resident Ryan Handelsman. “First and foremost, when you are elected into a public office, you sit in that position knowing that you are in the spotlight and subject to public scrutiny.”
“I’m not sure why the mayor or the town of Gilbert seems to be so ignorant when it comes to one’s First Amendment rights,” he added.
Handelsman is a plaintiff in an ongoing federal lawsuit filed in 2023 against the town that alleges a freedom of speech violation when Mayor Brigette Peterson ordered police to remove him and two others out from a public meeting for silently holding protest signs at the back of council chambers. Handelsman also is running for a council seat in the July 30 Primary.
An outside investigator found no wrongdoing on Peterson’s part, saying she was within her right to maintain decorum.
One of the proposals discussed earlier this month would incorporate in the town’s code the mayor’s right to remove “any person from any meeting of the council for disruption of the meeting or for a violation of the rules of decorum.”
Handelsman said, “I find the whole situation extremely concerning. What’s even more concerning is that these are only the things that we are discovering at the surface level.”
Shane Krauser, who is running against Councilman Scott Anderson for mayor, also criticized the proposed changes in the Council Rules of Order and Procedure.
“I am deeply concerned that there are ongoing discussions by our council that may result in stifling speech at our town council meetings,” Krauser said.
“The hallmark of political engagement is the vigorous exchange of ideas,” he continued.
“Gilbert residents have few outlets to communicate their ideas and concerns with their representatives outside of public forums, and to attempt to prohibit speech that may be arbitrarily classified as a ‘personal attack’ is in stark opposition to who we are as Americans.”
“Silence outspoken residents”
Shortly after the council’s discussion earlier this month, Dr. Brandon Ryff called the proposal an attempt “to silence Gilbert residents.” Ryff also is a plaintiff in the federal suit against Gilbert and a frequent critic of the mayor.
“Despite all of the very serious issues right now in the Town of Gilbert, our mayor…and some of our elected leadership are holding meetings focused on coming up with ways to silence outspoken Gilbert residents,” Ryff said in a social media statement.
He pointed to the recent public criticism of the mayor and council over addressing teen violence in Gilbert and the town’s Office of Digital Government, which is accused of spying on and keeping records of employees’ social media postings that don’t align with its progressive agenda.
Ryff said that what constituted a “personal attack” would be left to the council’s discretion.
“This would essentially make it illegal for anyone to criticize the mayor or any councilmember or say anything that could make them feel like they are being ‘personally attacked’– an overly broad term that the mayor and council would be free to define and interpret however they please,” Ryff said.
“The color of your shirt, a look on your face, facial expression, body language, or even your presence at a council meeting altogether could be deemed illegal if the mayor or council feels ‘personally attacked.’”
He also pointed out that the proposal would prohibit residents from criticizing any appointed official – such as a board or commission member – town employees or individual developers.
He claimed that if the mayor or council, whose campaigns often receive developers’ contributions, “feel like a resident’s comments are a ‘personal’ attack against a developer, they could shut you down.”
“The mayor and council members all ran ‘personally’ on their own individual merits, are ‘personally’ serving their public office, and are ‘personally’ making decisions that affect the everyday lives of all Gilbert residents,” Ryff continued
“Accordingly, the people of Gilbert should be allowed to hold the mayor and council members individually accountable and express their opinions freely.
“This inflated sense of self-importance shown here by the mayor and council members supporting this is truly astounding.”
Ryff also took issue with the restriction prohibiting political speeches at meetings, which he said is again left to the council’s interpretation.
Codifying unwritten rules
According to Town Attorney Chris Payne, Council always had unwritten rules for decorum at public meetings such as no applause, stamping of feet, whistles, boos and yells from the audience.
The proposal is to now formally codify them into code.
Peterson said that although the public is alerted beforehand not to engage in disruptive behavior, council does nothing when decorum is breached.
“We have personal attacks at every single meeting and nobody says a word and there are rules of decorum,” said Peterson, who often is at the receiving end of the criticism, including demands that she resign.
“So what kind of an example are we setting?
“It hit me two weeks ago when we were sitting here and maybe it was four weeks ago at this point and there were teenagers sitting in the front row and they had to sit and listen to the adults be so disrespectful and hateful,” the mayor continued.
“It’s not acceptable and right now we have a community that’s using hate to combat violence. It’s not acceptable and we watch it and we listen to it every single meeting and we have these rules but we’re not doing anything with them.”
Councilwoman Kathy Tilque, however, said that the banning of personal attacks likely needed to be removed because it would infringe on First Amendment rights.
She was OK, however, with the other restrictions – such as no signs, banners and similar items – inside the council chambers during meetings.
The town announced the ban in 2022, a month after the mayor booted Ryff, Handelsman and a woman from a meeting for holding up “Stop Lying” signs.
Tilque was confident that the public will better understand what conduct is permissable once a town video on it is completed.
“When people decide to create a lot of noise or you know support for one view over the other it intimidates other people, other people who are here with maybe even different topics but they are afraid to get up – that they may be booed,” Tilque said.
“It’s awkward, too, when they’re clapping and clapping and you get up there nobody does anything that you know silence is intimidating as well.
“I think that sometimes people misunderstand why we don’t want that applause going on. It’s because we want to make sure everybody’s First Amendment rights are upheld and that they feel they’re in a safe environment and that doesn’t always happen when people are clapping.”
Tilque also noted that it was hard to manage the public’s behavior from the dais and that is when calling for a recess comes into play.
“I think it’s something we haven’t used enough,” she said. “Using that recess option I think is a good way to try to get control back.”
Councilman Jim Torgeson agreed that the public at times had gotten personal in its criticism of elected officials.
“Yes, people have free speech but I would think that at some point we’re able to say, ‘hey can you dial it back a little bit because you’re making it personal,’” he said. “‘You’re not making it about an issue. You’re making it a personal issue.’ I mean are we not allowed to dial that in because some of it just gets over the top.”
Payne reminded the council that under the law, it “absolutely” has the right to maintain decorum at public meetings.
“This is a public meeting to do public business and that’s the priority for the council because you have real legal issues that are being determined and decided,” Payne said. “Because of that under the law public meetings are considered limited public forums.
“So while people do have First Amendment rights those rights are limited under the law because it’s a limited public forum.”
He said that the council has the right to impose reasonable restrictions on speech as long as it’s “viewpoint neutral.”
“You cannot pick and choose which speech you like,” Payne explained.
He also reminded council members that if they felt that someone’s speech was inappropriate or violated the rules of decorum they at any time can ask for a point of order or a recess.
“I think the problem has become that due to the hate and vitriol that nobody wants to step up because they figure they’ll be more hate and more vitriol if they do,” Peterson said. “When one person has the target on them, nobody wants to step up and say anything.”
She said to leave the proposed ban on personal attacks in place, adding, “somebody’s got to start putting on their big-girl panties and stepping up to the plate.”
Limits on speakers discussed
Council also discussed in length limiting the time for speakers to talk if there are a large number of thembecause it dragged out the meetings. Currently speakers are allowed three minutes each.
Peterson said that she wanted to see a time limit on communications from citizens at council meetings because it has become “weaponized” to promote “hate and vitriol.”
She also suggested pushing the public’s comments to the end of the meeting.
Peterson was criticized in 2021 when she put on the agenda a proposal to allow the mayor to determine how long speakers can talk. It was seen as a move on her part to silence her critics and was tabled at the time.
Councilwoman Yung Koprowski suggested capping speaker comments to a total of 75 minutes during public comments but Councilman Chuck Bongiovanni said that he was uncomfortable with any time limit.
“We’re here to listen to the people,” Bongiovanni said. “And if 20 people want to spend three minutes just attacking me, I’m OK with that because we need to give them the right to speak.
“I’ve been to a couple of meetings as a spectator that went on to two in the morning, one in the morning. To me that’s OK because we really are here to listen. If we want to limit to one minute or two minutes or something like that to make it more manageable, I’m OK with that but I have a concern. ”
Koprowski said she didn’t disagree with Bongiovanni’s comment but “there have been instances where we’ve been in meetings until after midnight.”
“I think that our decision-making abilities after a certain time of day, it dwindles and there are very important town business items that we need to be at our best at so we can make those decisions,” Koprowski said.
Councilwoman Bobbi Buchli said she had a problem with a proposed time limit.
“The best solution is to let them talk at the end,” Buchli said. “The meeting will be over at a certain time but at least they all have that opportunity to speak.”
Peterson pointed out that the objective of the meetings is to do the town’s business and allowing the public to speak when there’s been a long list of speakers has become an issue.
“We’ve sat through those meetings ‘til one o’clock in the morning,” she said. “We went into an exec session…we were exhausted and you’re not thinking right and you’re sitting here getting blasted by people because they choose hate, instead of communication, in a one-way discussion, in a one-way lecture that we can’t even respond to.”
Council can respond to criticism made during public comment but not until the “very end” after the last citizen sits down, according to Payne.
Peterson said she would like the town to create a slide to be shown at the beginning of each meeting, letting the public know that there are other ways to communicate with the council such as through email.
Payne also said that others in the audience, such as developers and property owners, also are waiting for public comments to conclude.
Vice Mayor Scott Anderson, who in his role handles communication from citizens at meetings, suggested counting the comment cards and from there the council can decide the amount of talk time to allot.
Peterson said that’s been tried before and failed.
Tilque suggested that once the public comments reached 75 minutes or whatever the council chose to set, it could then limit the talking to two minutes per speaker to expedite the process.
“I’ll be comfortable coming up with how many however long – two hours is too long,” Tilque said. “I think if we would have done two minutes each, we could have gotten all of that done.
“The thing is that when we have large groups it’s very repetitive. We want to hear everybody but we’re hearing the same thing over and over again and so I don’t want to give away somebody’s ability to present their information to us.
“But the people who are here for public hearing are paying attorneys to sit here and so it’s even more costly for those residents and other people who are wanting to be heard.”
Peterson recommended a different slip for people who wanted to speak on consent items and letting them comment before the council proceeded with the agenda items and putting communication from citizens at the end of the meeting.
“We’re not going to not take comments,” Tilque noted, adding Council would be “just going to reduce the time a little bit to manage that.”
Ryff vowed in an email to council and town administration that if the town moved forward with putting “that garbage into the code,” there will be no settlement of the two lawsuits.
He also filed a state lawsuit against the town over his ouster from the 2022 council meeting.
“I will take this as far as I need to protect my First Amendment rights,” said Ryff, who indicated that he transferred “another 100K into my legal fund, which I have dedicated to fighting the Town in this issue.”
