Rex Scott represents District 1 on the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

It is vital that citizens are able to speak to elected officials and share their concerns and opinions. Those of us who are privileged to hold public office need to hear the voices of those we represent so that we can better act in their interests. In Arizona, elected parties can add segments for public comment to meeting agendas.

Over the years, the Pima County Board of Supervisors has set aside time for voters to talk about us during meetings. The rules and regulations governing our public comment period simply read:

In the Open Call, those wishing to speak will address the Chair. Once recognized, the person proceeds to the rostrum, stating their full name, who they represent, and stating the subject.

As you can see, the board does not set a limit on the total time allotted for public comment. This is where we differ from other elected bodies in the region. The city, town, school district, and Pima Community College have policies that limit the amount of time spent on public comment.

At the June 6th meeting, I will be asking my colleagues to change the public comment policy as follows:

Public access shall be scheduled for one hour for each meeting unless extended by a majority vote of the Supervisory Board. The speaking time of the speaker shall be his 3 minutes. However, for meetings where 20 or more people have submitted speaker cards, each speaker’s time is limited to 2 minutes.

Although not stated in our current policy, a three-minute time limit for each speaker was the standard for our board and previous boards. To date, we have never capped total time, nor reduced individual times based on a large number of speakers. The recent behavior of those registered to speak at our conference shows the need for these new rules.

One of our local political parties actively encourages members to register to speak at our conventions. The county chair speaks at every meeting, as do many officers and district leaders. They coordinate their messages, prepare signs to display, and sometimes wear the same clothes. They make up the majority of speakers at recent conferences. They sometimes refer to topics we are considering, but they also comment on state and national issues.

While these activists are free to continue their activities as usual, the public comment period should not serve primarily as a forum for organized partisan action. It is set up so that all citizens can raise concerns to their supervisors on issues that are important to them. If political parties want to use this time to make their own points, they can do so, but they are not free to dominate this public space.

This kind of organized use of Call to the Public is nothing new. When previous commissions were considering receiving Operation Stone Garden grants, the public comment period was often occupied by opponents of counties receiving these funds. Again, the group has the right to speak to the board in large numbers, but this time it has the right to limit the monopoly efforts of certain groups. Also, like all local election bodies, we have the right to limit the amount of time we spend on public comment.

I hope the other four supervisors will join me in making these rational reforms. Spending one hour for public comment at each meeting and limiting individual speaking time when a large number of speakers are registered shows our determination to hear the voice of the people. It relieves groups from monopolizing the floor to further their own cause. This logic should be especially true for political parties that certainly have the means to advance their partisan cause outside of public meetings.