Rockville Delays Vote on New “Rules of Decorum” for Council Meetings
ROCKVILLE, Md. — The Rockville City Council on Monday delayed a vote on a proposal that would have created rules governing public comment at its meetings, citing a need for greater public review and discussion.
The draft “rules of decorum” were pulled from the Council’s agenda just 72 hours after the language was first made public in Council materials on Friday, Sept. 26. City leaders agreed during a Monday morning meeting to revisit the measure later this year.
Council Members Object to Rush
The decision to postpone the vote was made during the Council’s Leadership Planning Meeting, where the Mayor, Council Members, and senior staff finalize the evening’s agenda. “This draft is not yet ready for prime time,” said Councilmember Marissa Vale. Other members quickly agreed the item should be removed, noting the lack of community awareness and time for review.
“This particular agenda item, which only came about to us in detail and the public on Friday … if we're going to consider something like this, it should have a broader or longer time period for the public to review, for us to review and put in context with the rules and procedures,” Councilmember Adam Van Grack told his colleagues.
Beyond the timing, however, other Rockville officials expressed concern about the reasoning for the rules and their constitutionality. “During the last meeting it was suggested by one of my colleagues to move forward with this agenda item in haste and to have a draft by the next meeting,” said Councilmember Izola Shaw. “I think some of the reasonings provided why to rush this were actually protected under the First Amendment. We need to have a deeper conversation to ensure that we are balancing freedom of speech with and how we are defining decorum.”
After the item was removed from the agenda, City Manager Jeff Mihelich recommended placing the issue on Rockville’s Six-Month Agenda Planning Calendar, an internal tool used to schedule major policy items. “We can bring this back once we’ve had time for staff work and public feedback,” Mihelich said.
The Proposed Policy and Legal Concerns
The draft rules would have expanded the presiding officer’s power to enforce meeting order. Key provisions included:
Allowing removal of speakers deemed “offensive,” “abusive,” “disrespectful,” or “antagonistic.”
Requiring all speakers—in person or virtually—to register by the morning of the meeting.
Creating formal warning and removal procedures.
Supporters argue the rules could help keep meetings civil and efficient. However, civil liberties advocates warn that the subjective language about “offensive” or “disrespectful” remarks risks chilling public criticism.
While a single clause in the draft stated that “criticism of city officials or policies is protected speech and, by itself, does not constitute a disruption,” this promise was potentially undercut by the broad discretion given to the Chair to remove speakers for being “disrespectful.”
Rockville’s Draft Versus Local Standards
Rockville’s draft went further than local benchmarks, which typically focus narrowly on objective disruption. The Montgomery County Council’s Rules of Decorum, for example, focus on acts like shouting over speakers, blocking views, making loud noise, or refusing to stop after a clear warning. The County rules do not authorize removal simply because comments are offensive or antagonistic and avoid giving the Chair broad power over speech content.
Courts have repeatedly struck down similar civility rules elsewhere. Legal precedents abound, such as Ison v. Madison Local School District Board of Education (2021), where the Sixth Circuit invalidated bans on “abusive” or “antagonistic” speech; Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (2010), where the Ninth Circuit held that offensive expression alone does not equal disruption; and, Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), where the Supreme Court warned against “unbridled discretion” to silence critical voices.
Next Steps for Rockville
The debate over how far local government can go in policing meeting civility without infringing on First Amendment rights has been headline news in Maryland's Frederick and Washington counties recently, where free speech advocate and provocateur, Shaun Porter, has used offensive speech to challenge school board officials and County Council Members during meetings, even going as far as mooning them. Attempts to limit his speech, or preclude his attendance at meetings, have been consistently overturned on appeal by state review boards and the courts.
By placing the decorum rules on the Six-Month Agenda Planning Calendar, Rockville signaled the measure is not dead but will return later, likely after revisions and a chance for public input. In the interim, city officials will also look at how other municipalities manage meeting decorum.
Neighboring cities, including Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, and Kensington, currently rely on standard meeting procedures and have not recently advanced broad “civility” codes. Montgomery County relies on a more limited code than Rockville’s proposal.
Whether Rockville ultimately adopts new rules of decorum remains an open question, but their potential enforcement would almost certainly face immediate public challenge.
