Public comment time limit rule splits commissioner opinions; 3-minute rule doesn't pass

BERNALILLO — The question of how long public comment should be limited to has been an issue in Sandoval County Commission since a two-minute limit was established in 2023. Commissioners were divided April 9 when a resolution to increase the time to three minutes came up at the meeting, and ultimately that division kept the resolution from passing.

The resolution was supported by its two sponsors, commissioners Jon Herr and Jordan Juarez, but didn’t seem necessary to the commissioners who have served more time on the board, Chair Mike Meek and commissioners Josh Jones and Catherine Bruch.

Herr said he and Juarez decided to sponsor the item in response to public comment.

He was referring to the group of Sandoval County residents that go to every commission meeting and bring up their objections to the two-minute rule.

At a March 12 meeting, Mary Jo Streets, a resident in the county, referred to her previous public comments on the issue.

“I come before you tonight to expand upon my public comment from our last commission meeting as the two minute limit did not allow for complete conveyance of my thoughts,” she said.

She has attributed the lack of time to “conspiracy, infiltration, subversion and intimidation” by governments within the county and state. She stated it was intentional to limit availability to the public. She asked the time be increased to three minutes so people can have time to exercise their rights to free speech. The full two minutes of her public comment and others can be watched on Sandoval County’s webpage under meeting videos.

Herr and Juarez, who said they heard and understand the requests to increase the time to three minutes, stated they think it shouldn’t be too much of a task for commissioners to listen to a little bit more from their constituents.

“The proposed new rule would raise the limit to three minutes unless there are 20 or more speakers, at which time, just like before, the chair would set the limit prior to the beginning of public comment,” Herr said at the April 9 meeting. “This change is intended to accommodate for guest speakers’ First Amendment rights while still balancing meeting time when there’s a large attendance present.”

Doing some quick math, he observed that if the 10 speakers at the meeting had three minutes each that night, it would have only added about 10 minutes to the meeting.

“But I do believe that, while it is larger, it is important for the commission to take time to listen to public comment,” he said.

Juarez concurred with Herr’s statements, saying they both find the resolution to be an important move for the commission “based on the fact that we are public servants.”

“I think it is our job to listen to all sides of the aisle, whether that be left and right, center, off center, doesn’t matter. I understand that in the past meetings that it’s been told that, at least in the last eight years, the previous commission has done better than those before it, but that doesn’t mean that this commission can’t do even better than those from the past,” he said.

Juarez also said the people who come to public comment are passionate.

“They are taxpayers of our county, do to offer them one more minute is not going to hurt us as elected officials to be able to offer them that chance to express what is on their minds,” he said.

However, commissioners Bruch and Jones had concerns about the increase in time.

“I think we should have some perspective on this particular item in a couple of arenas, and one is that what I’ve noticed over the last several years is that we do have quite a few people who’d come to give public comment, and they seem to be able to accomplish their comments fairly timely,” Bruch said.

She talked about her own experience with public comment, saying she has been in committee meetings with a time limit of one minute before and is able to express her opinion within that time.

“What I have also noticed over the years is that we’ve had a lot of repetition and, historically, we did hold this differently. We would allow public comment on the items that are on the agenda so that people could specifically talk to those during those time frames. And I value that because I thought it was very effective to have the public comment on the items that we were that were coming up in in front of this commission and not items that historically we have not had the authority to,” she said.

Jones admitted he was conflicted on the issue but “landed on the other side of the coin.” He said additional time could pose a problem for staff who run the meeting.

“Just thinking about our staff. They’ve been here since eight o’clock. It’s a six o’clock meeting, and they’re going to be here for the duration of the rest of the meeting. And for me, we have members of the staff that get up at six o’clock in the morning, 5:30 in the morning. So their day doesn’t start at eight o’clock when they get here, at six o’clock when the meeting starts. So we’re now talking about a 10-hour day, 11-hour day, 12-hour day,” Jones said. “I do want to just express the other side of the coin when we’re talking about the staff and the folks that are preparing the meeting for this commission and the constituents.”

Juarez countered Bruch and Jones’ comments, claiming that just because the Legislature gives one minute in committee meetings doesn’t mean that is the right thing. He also said staff and commissioners knew what the job entailed.

“I do want to be respectful of our staff’s time. I understand that, but I do believe everybody in this room knew what the job was when we took it. We are a public format; that is the job we’ve taken,” he said.

Despite Juarez’s arguments, the resolution did not pass. While Meek did not comment on the matter, his vote was a hard “no” alongside Bruch and Jones.