Editor’s note: This story was updated on February 11 to add that the city said it will stream audio of the new public comment sessions.
The Fayetteville City Council voted Monday to change how and when residents can speak during public forums—but only after public pushback and internal disagreement prompted members to scale back parts of the original proposal.
Under the version ultimately approved in an 8-2 vote, the public forum will move from the second Monday of each month during the council’s regular meeting to a standalone meeting on the first Monday. The new meeting will begin at 6:15 p.m., shortly after the end of the council’s work session.
The speaking window will double from 30 minutes to an hour, and speakers will no longer be required to state their address at the podium. The sign‑up deadline will remain 5 p.m. the day of the meeting. Rebuttals, previously limited to the city manager and city attorney, may now be offered by the mayor.
Council member Shaun McMillan and a half a dozen speakers sharply criticized the initial proposal. They argued the earlier start time and earlier sign‑up deadline would make it harder for residents with jobs to participate. Several also objected to the lack of public discussion before the vote.
After more than half an hour of debate, the council amended the proposal as a compromise. Under the original version introduced at the start of the meeting, the standalone public forum meeting started at 5:15 p.m., and residents were required to sign up by 11:59 p.m. the night before. The proposal also folds announcements and recognitions into the new meeting.
The first public forum meeting will be held March 2 at 6:15 p.m. Public forums will no longer be held during the council’s regular meetings.
A city spokesperson said only audio of the public comment session will be streamed online, which is similar to how the city approaches streaming for work sessions.
Residents: Changes Narrow Participation
Opponents of the proposal urged the council to reject it. They argued that the earlier start time, new sign‑up deadline, and shift to a standalone meeting would make it harder—not easier—for residents to participate.
Ben Hultquist said the changes “would limit the ability for residents to participate in their city government.” He said that the earlier start time “would restrict participation for many working people” and that moving the forum to a separate meeting “would also limit the audience for the speaker.”
Kristen Starks questioned the intent behind tightening the sign‑up window.
“The changes would impact one of the most direct means of civic participation that residents have,” she said. Starks criticized the council for placing the proposal on the consent agenda without prior public discussion, calling the move “quite disappointing and adverse to the council’s supposed aim of transparency.”
McMillan said the changes restrict access rather than expand it.
“We serve at the pleasure of the people, and our legitimacy comes from their consent,” McMillan said. “When we restrict their access to us, when we narrow the pathways through which they can hold us accountable, we are not managing our time more efficiently. We are betraying the trust they placed in us.”
He said the amendments were being advanced “without adequate public input on the changes that directly affect how citizens engage with their government.” He called that contradiction “a violation of the principles of open governance we claim to uphold.”
McMillan also criticized what he described as inconsistent enforcement of decorum rules by Mayor Mitch Colvin.
“When enforcement appears selective or arbitrary, it undermines public trust and it raises questions about whose voices actually are being privileged and whose are being silenced,” he said. “Who gets interrupted? Who gets reminded of time limits? Who gets warned about decorum? Those decisions carry real consequences for democratic participation.”
McMillan also rebuked Mayor Pro Tem Derrick Thompson, who said during the council’s earlier dinner meeting that constituents “want their cake and want to eat it too.”
“The mayor does not, in fact, have unlimited discretion to restrict constitutionally protected expression,” McMillan said. “Citizens exercising their First Amendment rights are not asking for their cake and eating it too. They are demanding the constitutional protections they are entitled to.”
McMillan moved to table the policy, but the motion failed 8-2, with only McMillan and Council member Stephen Ferguson voting in support. After the vote, McMillan said he was “just disappointed that we are at this point already. We’re just starting a year, and we’re already this messy.”
Mayor Pushes Back
Colvin rejected McMillan’s claims, saying the changes were constitutional and made in good faith. He asked City Attorney Lachelle Pulliam whether the policy complied with the law; she said it did.
“A lot of times we say things that don’t particularly have a basis for it,” Colvin said about McMillan’s comments.
He argued that council members hear from residents in many settings, not just during public forums.
“Because we hear from some here—those who come out and are more vocal than others—it doesn’t mean that the decisions we make, or that we don’t in our own circles hear from that,” Colvin said. “This council was elected by the people, so obviously the people trust our judgment to make decisions.”
Colvin urged members to debate policy without accusing one another of ignoring constituents or violating constitutional rights.
Supporters: Changes Improve Public Access
Thompson, who chairs the policy committee, said the intent of the proposal was giving residents more time to speak.
“There’s always a motion to try to extend the time,” Thompson said. “So in order for us to accommodate all them, we thought it would behoove us to try to come up with ample enough time for everybody that wants to speak.”
Council member Deno Hondros said he has heard frequent complaints about meetings stretching late into the evening before the council reaches its agenda.
“With recognitions and announcements and a public forum, the council may not get to agenda items until 8 p.m.,” Hondros said. “This was done in the spirit of allowing more access. Is the existing policy perfect? It’s not. Is this one perfect? Probably not. But I think the consensus was that this was an improvement.”
Government reporter Rachel Heimann Mercader can be reached at rheimann@cityviewnc.com or 910-988-8045.
Did you find this story useful or interesting? It was made possible by donations from readers like you to the News Foundation of Greater Fayetteville, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization committed to an informed democracy in Fayetteville and Cumberland County.Please consider making a tax-deductible donation so CityView can bring you more news and information like this.
