Image Credit: Canva
Submitted by Caleb Tidwell –
Some 233 years ago, on December 15, 1791, the First Amendment was ratified. Over the past several years, this fundamental freedom has been under attack by local governing bodies.
During the COVID era, many efforts were made to restrict the voices of constituents. As public participation grew, rather than welcoming parents, school boards across the state implemented tighter restrictions on speech. One such adjustment required that public comment be restricted to items listed on the agenda.
By adding clarifying language, HB22 moves beyond the restrictive limitations of “agenda-only” items and expands speech to include all matters under the jurisdiction of that local governing body. This is common-sense legislation.
This ensures that the people can petition their local legislative bodies. The First Amendment at work.
Not only does this increase transparency by allowing individuals to bring pressing issues to the forefront that might not have been addressed otherwise, but it also fosters relationships with the community and provides feedback to those local governing bodies directly from the constituents they serve.
Case in point: On March 7, 2024, Stephan WhiteEagle spoke at the Rutherford County School Board on behalf of his son’s desire to wear a single eagle feather at graduation. Feathers, in Native American culture, are often awarded to honor a milestone achievement, much like receiving a military medal.
Mr. WhiteEagle had pursued this request two months earlier through standard channels but was met with denial. Yet after his public comment before the School Board, the board acted swiftly—during that same meeting—to approve his request.
Honor was restored even though “eagle feathers” were not an agenda item that night.
Critics may argue that meetings could be unnecessarily extended or that speakers may make disparaging remarks. However, democracy isn’t about convenience—it’s about representation. Trust in representation deteriorates when efforts are made to quiet dissenters.
Local governments can implement reasonable individual time limits, allocate a set amount of time for public comment, and establish other practical considerations without limiting items of public concern to those listed on the agenda.
As an elected official, I’ve been at the blunt end of public comment before, and yet I still desire to hear the hearts of my constituents – whether in agreement or not. Resistance will either strengthen one’s position or expose its weaknesses. Both are positive outcomes. My initial engagement in public comment has been responsible for my path into local politics today.
In March of 2024, a new policy restricting speech to agenda items only passed through the Rutherford County School Board’s policy committee on a 12-3 vote. Thankfully, this was later postponed after public push-back on the proposed change. HB22’s additional language can ensure this doesn’t happen again.
Seeing firsthand the difference HB22 can make—getting civilians more engaged in policy, enlightening boards on issues in the community not listed on the agenda, and increasing transparency—will improve relationships between constituents and those they elect. The best decisions are made when people feel heard. Men and women died for the right to freely speak. Let’s not give that right up.
Use your voice before you lose the right to. Support HB22.
3 Responses
Amen! Thanx!
Mr. Tidwell is correct in his analysis and he has been the brunt of much citizen “testimony”…some in very poor taste.
The agenda item only rule has often been used by officials to silence free speech by delaying until it’s irrelevant. This tactic can place them in an information “bubble” of ideas they believe are important, when they are not a priority to the citizen.
Open agendas give immediate feedback to officials about what is going on in their community in real time.
I emailed the appropriate legislators in support of this bill. The process was made easy by the Tennessee Conservative who has been following the current legislative session closely providing names and contact information for the correct officials.
Thanks to you all!
I appreciate this article and will tell you that I have personally witnessed a small municipality in Blount County, TN trying to abuse our rights to public comments. It started over a controversial development issue in our town. When the community began to express their distaste for the development our mayor instituted a “limitation on public comment resolution”. Her first attempt at the resolution was to allow for public comments on the agenda items only after the meeting had concluded. This meant people would not be allowed to express their opinions before the Board of Mayor and Alderman had already voted on the matters at hand. They also wanted to force people to sign in before the meeting actually started, so if someone was minutes late, they would not be able to speak. With several weeks of complaints, we finally had them yield to some of our demands. However, now they only enforce the public comments “limitation” on people who they disagree with. Meaning some members (myself included) are harshly forced to halt my comments, while others are allowed to give their comments ad nauseam. They also use manipulation tactics to alter the public comments given in their official meeting minutes. Furthermore, my small municipality has since limited public comments on social media. They ultimately turned off social media comments after a citizen left a minor snarky remark and the Town wrote a social media policy that allows them the unrestricted right to redact comments left on their media pages by citizens. This is a major issue for small town Tennessee. I worry this law is only broaching a small area of abuse, rather than ensuring we are further protected. Governments should not be allowed to administer public comment laws unfairly and inconsistently to citizens.