Stamford’s Legislative & Rules Committee Proposes Limits to Public Comments
A proposed amendment would grant the board president the ability to cancel speech that included "personal attacks"
CORRECTION 01/16/2026: This article has been corrected to reflect the most recent language of the proposed amendment on Jan. 7, 2026. A previous version of this article referenced the language of the proposed amendment submitted on Dec. 8, 2025.
STAMFORD — A proposal to amend Stamford’s Board of Representatives public comment period has sparked opposition and debate over the constitutional limits of local governance and free speech.
The proposed amendment has not been discussed by the board or voted on, but the text of the amendment was added to the agenda for the Board of Representative’s Legislative & Rules committee. Multiple residents in Stamford have shared the text and published opinion pieces opposing the changes.
Since the public’s response, a newly proposed amendment was submitted on Jan. 7 that removed text that would’ve limited speakers to three comments per calendar year and prevented speakers from speaking on the same topic across multiple comments. However, text about limiting “disparaging personal comments” has not been removed and instead reworded to limit “personal attacks.”
The board’s rules on public comment already have some restrictions on speakers. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes and the president has “sole discretion” to “shorten or cancel” speakers’ time if their comments are “disruptive” or ”unruly.”
Repeat commenters “drown out” participation
The proposed changes come with the context of a historic landslide victory for re-elected Mayor Caroline Simmons. Simmons and Stamford’s Democratic City Committee Chair Robin Druckman organized a number of new candidates for seats on Stamford’s DCC and Board of Representatives that resulted in the removal of incumbents who opposed development in Stamford. This strategy from Simmons and her party are seen as a response to a number of highly visible proxy debates about development, including the Glenbrook Community Center, the charter revisions in 2023, and the 2025 mayoral election cycle — where all candidates opposing Simmons focused on development.
These proxy debates attracted the same handful of activists opposed to development.
An analysis by Indivisible Stamford of public comments submitted on issues related to “land use” (a broad term for zoning, planning, and development) from July 2021 to September 2022 found there were a total of 264 statements of opposition submitted by 57 individuals. Of the 57 individuals, 14 individuals submitted 188 negative comments — 71% of all negative comments. Of these 188 comments, 40% of them were submitted by six people who were later selected as part of the charter revision committee that proposed changes that would make development in Stamford more difficult.1
Repetitive commenters may deter other voices.
“When the same people show up month after month to speak on the same topic — sometimes in increasingly belligerent or monotonous ways — it becomes easier for officials to tune out,” said former Board of Education member Versha Munshi-South in an opinion piece to CT Examiner. “It’s not because public input is unimportant, but because repetition can drown out new perspectives and reduce meaningful dialogue.”
Munshi-South’s piece said the proposed amendment “risks limiting discourse rather than addressing the root of the problem.” Munshi-South clarified in an email to Feather Ruffler she supports “reasonable procedural guardrails” such as setting expectations around civility and prohibiting personal attacks.
First Amendment protections of “personal attacks”
“Personal attacks” may be protected speech the board cannot legally prohibit. The latest version of the proposed amendment reads (additions are bolded):
The President may keep good order and decorum in any manner authorized by Robert’s Rules of Order, and, for the avoidance of doubt, may shorten or cancel the speaking time of any speaker during the public comment period if deemed in the President’s sole discretion to be disruptive or unruly. Personal attacks against Board members will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted, whether or not the speaker states the name of the Board member.
“Granting a Board President the power to silence a citizen based on the content or tone of their criticism is a recipe for viewpoint discrimination and legal liability for the City of Stamford,” said Jonathan Saint Victor in an email submitted to the board. Saint Victor is one of several residents who submitted statements of opposition to the proposed amendment.2
Saint Victor’s comment is consistent with legal experts.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) — a nonpartisan free speech advocacy organization — warns government officials often attempt to disguise “viewpoint discrimination” as simple rules for decorum.
According to FIRE, the government can impose “time, place, and manner” restrictions to keep meetings orderly but they cannot silence speakers because their beliefs “cause offense.”
“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,” said Dennis LoDolce in an opinion piece to CT Examiner responding to Munshi-South’s piece. “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.”
The text limiting speakers to three appearances per calendar year has since been removed from the proposed amendment.
The extent of the first amendments protections for offensive speech was litigated in the 2011 Supreme Court case Snyder vs. Phelps. The defendant Fred Phelps was the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church which organized protests to coincide with funeral services of American soldiers who identified as gay. These protests included picket signs that read “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for 9/11.” The court ruled speech made in a “public pace” on a “matter of public concern” cannot be limited even if it is offensive, outrageous, or the cause of emotional distress.
“As a Nation, we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” said Chief Justice John Roberts in his opinion to the court.
The City of Stamford’s law department has not issued a formal legal opinion on the legality of the proposed amendment.
How do you know what the public thinks?
Indivisible Stamford’s analysis of repeat commenters presents the view that repeated comments can skew perceptions on the public’s support of policies. For example, if repeat commenters submit hundreds of statements against development but a mayor who is not against development wins in a landslide.
LoDolce said he agrees with Munshi-South that meetings should be efficient and respectful, but disagrees that repetitive comments devalue public comments.
“Elected officials are expected to weigh many inputs: data, surveys, elections, outreach, and expert advice, not just who speaks at a meeting,” said LoDolce in an email to Feather Ruffler. “To someone who sees this as a problem, I would say the solution is better judgment and broader outreach, not restricting access to public comment. Limiting who can speak because their participation might ‘skew perception’ shifts responsibility away from decision-makers and onto residents who are simply exercising their rights.”
Feather Ruffler reached out to members of the Legislative & Rules Committee to identify the author and motivations of the amendment, but did not receive a response before publication of this article. However, the discussion at the meeting where the amendment was proposed can provide insight into its purpose.
The amendment was first introduced at the Legislative & Rules Committee on Dec. 23. The committee voted to hold discussion on the amendment because the committee had already spent several hours discussing another amendment to board rules limiting the speaking time of board members. The discussion of that amendment mentioned the goal of reducing the length of public board meetings — which frequently go on for four or five hours.
Both LoDolce and Munshi-South said they agree long meetings or complex rules can create barriers to public engagement.
“Many residents are deeply invested in local issues but are effectively excluded by time, format, and process,” said Munshi-South in an email to Feather Ruffler. “Meetings held on weekday evenings, limited speaking slots, and a culture that rewards familiarity with procedure all favor a small, consistent group of participants. That dynamic can look like disinterest, but it’s more accurately a question of access and design.”
“Most residents are focused on their jobs, families, and day-to-day responsibilities, and local government often doesn’t rise to the top unless an issue directly affects them,” said LoDolce. “Stamford actually has a fairly strong track record when it comes to access because residents can attend meetings in person or on Zoom, send emails, make phone calls, and reach out to elected officials in multiple ways. The mechanisms are there, but many people only become active when something meaningful or impactful brings them into the process.”
Both had their own recommendations for how to better solicit public opinions.
“One idea worth exploring is hosting civic engagement night classes, where residents can learn more about Stamford’s government, how decisions are made, and how the voting process works,” said LoDolce. “Increasing civic literacy can help people feel more confident engaging when issues arise.”
“Boards should be clearer about which decisions are genuinely shaped by public input and which are largely driven by legal or regulatory requirements,” said Munshi-South. “Not every agenda item offers the same opportunity for public influence, and being transparent about that distinction would help set realistic expectations and build trust.”
The Legislative & Rules committee’s next meeting is Jan. 27 at 7pm. The public can attend committee meetings but cannot speak unless invited by the committee.
The six include: Jeanette Bilicznianski, Cynthia Bowser, Karen Camporeale, Sue Halpern, Shelley Michelson, and Anthony Pramberger Jr. An additional 15% of negative comments came from Barry Michelson — the spouse of Shelley Michelson. So 55% of the 188 negative comments came from 7 people.
Including 3 of the 7 identified by Indivisible Stamford as frequent negative commenters (Halpern, and both Michelsons).