Protesters at the BMA meeting

2024-02-27.  This testimony was submitted to the City of Manchester Board of Mayor & Aldermen regarding the disruption caused by protesters at the 2024-02-20 BMA meeting.

Greetings,

I am a resident of Ward 11, a voter, and a property owner and investor in the City of Manchester.

This letter is in response to the disruption caused by protesters at the February 20, 2024 Board of Mayor & Aldermen meeting at City Hall.  Many people have been discussing this situation, with both good and bad solutions offered.  Herein I offer recommendations which will address the issue without restricting the people’s right to speak at public meetings.

Changes made in response to these disruptions must fully respect everyone’s freedom of speech.  The City must not implement any policies based upon the content of testimony.1  However, content-neutral policies such as time and place restrictions are acceptable.  Those are what I recommend here.

Freedom of speech—the right to speak and petition one’s government freely—does not mean a right to disrupt a meeting, intimidate others, or prevent others from speaking by monopolizing the microphone or causing chaos.

I frequently attend public hearings at the N.H. State House.  The City should look to how they conduct hearings—their rules of decorum, their procedures for maintaining order and ensuring everyone gets a fair opportunity to speak, and so on.  Manchester could use these as a model for governing its meetings.

Sort speakers.  Residents first, business or property owners second, and everyone else afterward.  If time limits who is allowed to speak at a particular meeting, residents and property owners voicing their concerns should be prioritized over giving the microphone to out-of-towners who wish to express their opinions in a venue that does not actually impact them.  (The State House places bill sponsors, other representatives, and senators first; agencies second; and other speakers afterward.)

Speakers should be required to identify themselves and their residence.  I do not recommend requiring speakers to give their full address, because some may be intimidated by others’ behavior into revealing where they live.  Name, city, and perhaps ward should be sufficient.

Speakers with written testimony should submit it, not read it.  If a speaker begins to read testimony verbatim, interrupt them and tell them to submit their written testimony.

Limit speakers presenting substantially the same testimony.  Remind speakers that everyone has a right to speak, but there is limited time and so repetitive testimony serves no purpose.

Keep the limit on speaking at three minutes.  There has been discussion of reducing it to two minutes, but this essentially punishes everyone for the disruptive behavior of only some attendees.

At the opening of the meeting, remind everyone that the purpose of the meeting is to hear concerns from residents of the city, from business and property owners, and others with an actual stake in the city—it is not a venue for protesting.  Those who want to do so can protest outdoors but they cannot disrupt or monopolize a public meeting.

The City could also look at how towns conduct their town meetings and deliberative sessions.  At the opening of a meeting, the registered voters are asked to vote whether to allow non-residents to speak or not.  Since town meetings are for the townspeople to act on the business of the town, there is no right for non-residents to participate.  Something like this could be explored as a policy for the City to adopt.  I think this is a more extreme solution, since it does fully prevent some attendees from speaking, but it is worth considering. 

Some have suggested requiring ID to to speak.  I oppose this.  Not possessing a government-issued ID should not prohibit someone from voicing their opinion.  The Aldermanic Chamber has surveillance cameras, so if someone does something criminal and needs to be identified, there is already a means to do so.

I also strongly advise against arresting disorderly speakers, threatening to arrest them, or creating a visible police presence at the meetings.  Arresting these people will only serve to increase their visibility and, among their supporters, turn them into martyrs.  It also creates needless costs which the taxpayers end up bearing.  And a visible police presence will intimidate the wrong kind of (law-abiding) people while likely emboldening these disruptive groups into creating a provocation, again so they can gain visibility and publicity.  Don’t take their bait.

If this issue is discussed at a committee meeting, I would be more than happy to participate in those meetings.  ▰

In liberty—
Jeremy J. Olson
Manchester Ward 11