07/24/2026
At the July 27th Festus City Council work session, we will be again discussing proposed changes to the City’s Rules of Decorum.
I fully support maintaining safe and orderly meetings, but I also believe we must be extremely careful that rules intended to maintain order do not unnecessarily restrict the public’s voice or their First Amendment rights.
There are positive changes in this proposal, but several provisions still concern me. I shared the following thoughts and proposed amendments with my fellow Councilmembers ahead of Monday’s discussion:
Mr. Mayor and Councilman,
Ahead of Monday’s discussion, I wanted to share some thoughts regarding the proposed changes to our Rules of Decorum and identify several areas that I believe deserve further discussion.
I absolutely believe we need reasonable rules of decorum for our meetings. I believe many of the rules we already have in place are sufficient to accomplish that purpose; however, I am certainly willing to consider the proposed changes and discuss whether there are areas where our existing rules can be improved.
It is important that we are able to conduct the business of the City in a peaceful, orderly, and productive manner. Threats of violence, intimidation, repeated interruptions, or conduct that actually prevents the Council from conducting City business are unacceptable. I fully support reasonable rules that address that type of conduct and help ensure our meetings remain safe, orderly, and productive. Residents have a right to attend their City Council meetings, Councilmembers have a responsibility to conduct the City’s business, and everyone in the room should be able to participate or observe without fear for their safety or being prevented from hearing the proceedings.
At the same time, there is an equally important principle that I believe we have a responsibility to protect: the First Amendment rights of the people we represent.
There is an important distinction between disruptive conduct and speech that is critical, passionate, uncomfortable, repetitive, or even offensive to an elected official. We already have rules and legal authority to address genuine threats, violence, intimidation, and conduct that actually disrupts or prevents us from conducting City business. The question, then, is not whether we have the ability to maintain order. We do. The question is whether additional restrictions are necessary and, if so, whether they are narrowly and objectively written so they do not unnecessarily restrict a citizen’s ability to criticize their government or the people who represent them. I believe we should be extremely cautious about expanding restrictions beyond what is actually necessary to maintain a safe and orderly meeting.
I also want to acknowledge that this proposal contains several improvements from the version we previously discussed. In particular, moving the deadline to register for Visitor Remarks to 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting provides significantly greater public access, and I strongly support that change. Expanding access to public comment is something I have advocated for and is also addressed in an ordinance I previously submitted to Leah and discussed with Ben. I believe it would be helpful for the Council to consider that ordinance as part of this broader discussion about public participation and our Rules of Decorum. Ben, could you please make sure that ordinance is included for discussion during Monday’s work session?
The proposed rules themselves state that our objectives include providing the public a full opportunity to be heard, facilitating transparency, applying the same rules to everyone, and creating an atmosphere respectful of diverse opinions. I believe the final rules we adopt should fully reflect those principles.
There are, however, several provisions that continue to concern me, and I would like us to discuss the following possible amendments on Monday:
“Personal attacks.” I would propose striking this language from the definition of disorderly conduct. The term “personal attack” is inherently subjective and, in my opinion, creates too much discretion in determining what speech is acceptable. A resident could say that an elected official acted irresponsibly, misled the public, should resign, or should not be reelected. The official receiving that criticism may consider it personal, but criticism of public officials should not become disorderly conduct simply because it is harsh, uncomfortable, or offensive. Threats, intimidation, and actual disruptive behavior are separately addressed by the rules. I believe our rules should regulate actual disruptive conduct rather than attempt to determine when criticism has become too personal.
“Repetitive comments.” I strongly believe this language should be removed as a form of disorderly conduct. This is particularly important to me because I have heard repeatedly from Festus residents that they do not want their opportunity to address their elected representatives unnecessarily restricted. The proposed rules encourage multiple people addressing the same issue to designate a spokesperson and encourage later speakers to simply state that they join in the remarks of someone who spoke before them. I have no objection to offering that as a completely voluntary option, but no citizen should ever feel pressured to remain silent simply because another person happened to speak first and expressed a similar viewpoint.
Each person who comes before this Council is an individual. They have their own voice, their own experiences, their own concerns, and their own perspective. Two people may both oppose or support the same issue without their views being identical. We should be very careful about treating people as a group simply because they happen to share a position on an issue.
Visitor Remarks may be the only opportunity that evening for a resident to speak directly to the entire Council. If twenty residents come before us to oppose a City action, those are not simply twenty repetitions of one viewpoint. They are twenty individual citizens asking their elected representatives to hear them. We should hear them. No resident should have to sit in the audience wondering whether what they intended to say is “different enough” from the previous speaker to be permitted, or whether speaking could somehow be characterized as disorderly conduct.
We have a responsibility to respect the First Amendment principles that protect citizens when they petition and criticize their government. While reasonable and viewpoint neutral rules governing a public comment period can exist, I do not believe efficiency requires us to discourage individual citizens from exercising the opportunity we have provided them to address their Council. We can encourage voluntary coordination when residents want it, but we should never create a rule that pressures individuals to surrender their own voice because someone else has been placed in the same group or expressed a similar opinion. We should treat the people who come before us as individuals, not simply as members of one side or another.
“Irrelevant comments.” I would propose striking this language as a form of disorderly conduct. The rules already require visitor remarks to concern City business and limit comments to the topic identified on the speaker’s request form. If a speaker gets off topic, the presiding officer can ask that person to return to the stated topic. I do not believe an irrelevant statement should place a citizen into the same enforcement category as someone who threatens, intimidates, or actually disrupts a meeting.
“Business of the City.” I have concerns that this phrase, without further definition, could be interpreted too narrowly depending upon who is presiding over a meeting. The proposed rule states that remarks must relate to “the business of the City of Festus,” but does not define what that means. I do not believe whether a citizen is permitted to speak should depend upon the Mayor, Presiding Officer, or anyone else making a subjective determination about whether that person’s concern constitutes “City business.”
For purposes of Visitor Remarks, I believe citizens should be permitted to speak about anything related to the City of Festus. That should include City government, operations, services, finances, property, policies, ordinances, decisions, actions or inactions, past or proposed actions, and matters a citizen believes the City should consider or address. It should also include the official conduct, actions, decisions, performance, or responsibilities of elected and appointed officials, City officers and employees, departments, boards, commissions, committees, contractors, developers, vendors, consultants, and other individuals or entities doing business with the City.
A citizen should not be told that a subject is not “City business” simply because it is not currently on an agenda, the Council has not previously considered it, the City has chosen not to act on it, or the subject is critical or uncomfortable. If the subject is related to the City of Festus, that should be sufficient. This standard should be applied consistently regardless of the speaker, the subject, or the viewpoint being expressed.
I would suggest language substantially similar to: “For purposes of these Rules, ‘business of the City’ shall include any matter related to the City of Festus, including its government, operations, services, finances, property, policies, ordinances, decisions, actions or inactions, past or proposed actions, matters a speaker believes warrant consideration or action by the City, and the official conduct or performance of City elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, departments, boards, commissions, committees, contractors, consultants, vendors, developers, or other persons or entities doing business with the City.”
Protection for criticism of City government. I would like us to consider adding an express protection for criticism of City government. For discussion, I would suggest language substantially similar to: “Nothing in these Rules shall be interpreted or enforced to prohibit or restrict criticism of the City, its policies or decisions, or its elected officials, officers, employees, departments, boards, commissions, contractors, or persons or entities doing business with the City based upon the viewpoint expressed by the speaker.” I believe putting this principle directly into the rules would provide important protection for the public while also providing clear guidance to current and future City officials responsible for enforcing these rules.
Warning before removal. I believe a warning should be required before someone is removed for an ordinary decorum violation. The current proposal states that the Mayor/Presiding Officer should attempt to provide a warning but specifically provides that a warning is not required before removal. I have significant concerns with that. If someone presents an immediate threat to safety, engages in violence, or requires immediate law enforcement intervention, obviously immediate action may be necessary. Outside of those circumstances, a citizen should be clearly told what rule they are violating and given a reasonable opportunity to correct their behavior before being removed from a public meeting. Removal from a public meeting should be an extraordinary measure, not the first response to a decorum issue.
Intoxication provision. I strongly believe the special intoxication provision should be removed. This provision is far too broad and raises serious concerns for me. It would allow any City staff member to request that a police officer assess a citizen attending a public meeting for suspected intoxication and potentially result in that person being excluded from the meeting. The provision even establishes a process involving an alcohol breath test for readmission.
I am concerned that a provision like this could have an intimidating effect on members of the public and could be susceptible to selective or inconsistent application. A citizen attending a meeting should not have to worry that simply because someone suspects they may have consumed alcohol or otherwise believes they appear intoxicated, they could become subject to a police assessment while attempting to observe or participate in their local government.
If someone is threatening others, materially disrupting the meeting, or violating the law, we already have rules and law enforcement authority to address that conduct. Our focus should be on a person’s actual behavior and whether that behavior is disrupting the meeting, not on creating an additional mechanism to investigate a citizen who is otherwise peacefully attending a public meeting. I also believe we should receive a clear legal opinion regarding this provision before considering its adoption. For me, this goes well beyond what is reasonably necessary to maintain order and decorum at a City Council meeting.
Clearing the Council chambers. I believe we need to carefully reconsider the provision allowing the entire Council chambers to be cleared. The proposed rules allow the Mayor/Presiding Officer to remove all attendees when deemed necessary for safety. I recognize that an extraordinary emergency could arise where clearing the room is necessary to protect people. However, removing the entire public from an open meeting is itself an extraordinary action. I believe the standard for doing so should be extremely high, clearly defined, and tied to an actual and immediate safety concern. This should not become a mechanism for clearing a room simply because a meeting has become contentious, uncomfortable, or difficult to manage.
Five minute speaking time and the proposed sixty minute cap. I support retaining five minutes per speaker and strongly oppose imposing a sixty minute overall cap on Visitor Remarks. The draft language contemplates reducing individual comments to three minutes and terminating visitor remarks after sixty minutes, with citizens who were not heard carried over to the next regular meeting.
If an issue is significant enough that fifty or sixty residents take the time to come to City Hall and ask to address us, I believe we have a responsibility to hear them. Those residents have rearranged their evenings, left their families, or changed their schedules to participate in their local government. I understand the desire for efficient meetings, but public participation is not an inconvenience that needs to be managed out of the process. Listening to the people we represent is part of our responsibility as elected officials.
Order of speakers. I believe the order of speakers should remain neutral and based upon when requests are received. I understand the reasoning behind giving Festus residents priority. However, someone who does not reside within the City limits may own a business or property in Festus, work here, or be directly affected by a City decision. First come, first heard provides a simple, objective, and consistently applied standard.
I also agree with the underlying concern raised regarding individuals shouting over Councilmembers. No one should be permitted to repeatedly shout over a Councilmember who has the floor or otherwise make it impossible for the Council to conduct its business. I would simply make that protection apply equally to everyone who has been recognized to speak, including members of the public, City staff, and elected city officials. Actual disruption should be addressed regardless of who is speaking.
Ultimately, I believe the distinction we draw should be straightforward. We should regulate conduct that actually prevents us from conducting the people’s business, not viewpoints, criticism, anger, or disagreement.
As elected officials, we will be criticized. People will sometimes be angry with us. They may question our decisions, our judgment, our motives, our integrity, or whether we should continue serving in office. We may believe some of those statements are unfair or offensive. That comes with holding public office. Our Rules of Decorum should not become a shield protecting elected officials from criticism.
At the same time, the First Amendment does not mean that someone has the right to threaten violence, intimidate others, repeatedly shout over recognized speakers, or prevent a public body from conducting its meeting. We already have the ability to address actual threats and genuine disruption. We do not need unnecessarily broad or subjective restrictions on speech in order to maintain order.
Our responsibility is to maintain an environment where the Council can safely and effectively conduct City business while also respecting the public’s constitutional right to petition and criticize its government. Those two responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.
I believe we can maintain order without unnecessarily restricting speech, promote civility without insulating ourselves from criticism, and establish clear and objective rules that will be applied fairly regardless of who is speaking or what viewpoint they hold.
I look forward to discussing these issues and hearing everyone’s thoughts on Monday.
Dan Moore
Festus City Councilman – Ward 3
