To the Editor:
Public comment is not a nuisance to be managed. It is a core feature of local democracy, and recent efforts to restrict it in Stamford should concern anyone who values open and transparent government.
A recent op-ed by former Board of Education member Versha Munshi-South argued that a “small number of individuals” have come to dominate public comment and that repeated participation undermines democratic discourse. That argument goes further elsewhere. In a public post on Nextdoor, she wrote: “Democracy is not just having an open mic for a very small amount of people to repeatedly make the same arguments in an increasingly belligerent manner each month… Why not try something new.”
That statement is troubling, not because people disagree, but because it reframes consistent civic engagement as something unhealthy, illegitimate, or anti-democratic. Showing up repeatedly to speak to elected officials is not a failure of democracy. It is how democracy functions at the local level.
Around the same time, on the same Nextdoor thread, a close associate and prominent supporter of the Democratic City Committee reportedly dismissed concerns about the proposed rule changes by saying critics would “have to find something better to do.” That attitude is deeply wrong. It belittles residents who take time out of their lives to participate in civic affairs, unpaid, unrecognized, and often at personal cost. Democracy is not a hobby. It is a responsibility. These arguments are not theoretical. They are being raised in direct response to a set of proposed amendments currently before the Board of Representatives.
That is why this debate is especially urgent: the proposed amendments to the Board of Representatives’ public comment rules would dramatically diminish speech.
- Residents would be limited to speaking no more than three times per year.
- Speakers would be barred from addressing the same topic more than once, regardless of whether the issue remains unresolved.
- Entire categories of criticism, including depersonalized criticism of public officials, would be deemed “disruptive” at the sole discretion of the presiding officer.
These provisions go far beyond promoting civility. They are overly harsh, highly restrictive, and constitutionally suspect. Public comment is one of the few formal ways residents have to directly address their government. Limiting people to three appearances per year and controlling which topics they may speak on strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, which exists precisely to protect speech that is repetitive, uncomfortable, or critical of those in power. This is not a question of etiquette or efficiency.
There is no moral issue to debate: restricting lawful speech because it is repetitive or uncomfortable is wrong.
Supporters of the changes argue they are necessary for meeting efficiency, specifically to prevent the meetings from running late into the night. I have publicly engaged with Board of Representative Michael McKeown (D-7), Chairman of the Board’s Legislative and Rules Committee, who gave a neutral explanation of this position. But the premise does not hold up.
Public comment contributes minimally to meetings running late. Stamford’s Board of Representatives meetings routinely last five or more hours because of lengthy, and necessary, debates among representatives themselves, amendments, procedural motions, and legislative negotiations. Cutting public comment will not meaningfully shorten meetings. It will simply reduce public input.
Another argument offered is that, because we live in a representative democracy, it is normal to limit direct public participation. That may be true at higher levels of government, but Stamford is not Washington D.C., and it never has been. New England’s political tradition, dating back centuries, has emphasized robust local participation: town meetings, open debate, and frequent citizen involvement. Direct public input at the municipal level is not an aberration in our city’s and region’s local history. It is a defining feature in our way of local governance.
This is not about defending bad behavior. Meetings should be orderly. Speakers should follow rules of decorum. But we already have tools to address truly disruptive conduct. What is being proposed now goes much further, substituting broad restrictions that discourage participation instead of encouraging more voices to join.
If Stamford’s civic discourse feels narrow, the solution is not to silence those who show up. It is to invite more people in, not fewer. Democracy is not weakened by repetition. It is weakened when citizens are told, implicitly or explicitly, that they are speaking too often, asking the wrong questions, or caring too much.
Residents who find these proposed rules troubling should make their voices heard. Email the Board of Representatives at bor_allreps@stamfordct.gov and remind them that public comment is a right, and that citizens’ speech is not theirs to ration or restrict.
Public comment exists to make those in power uncomfortable when necessary. That is not a flaw. It is the point.
—
Dennis LoDolce is a Stamford native, member of the Stamford Republican Town Committee (District 8), and a former candidate for the Board of Education