At that time, the City Council was considering the elimination of virtually all public commentary unless it was on “agenda items”: [link]

This was criticized in the local media as anti-democratic.

Fortunately, at the urging of the ACLU, Council relented and merely slashed speakers’ time to 3 minutes. The Council also pushed all “agenda item” speakers to the head of the line, for the first time.

Yes, even at the Michigan Student Assembly: [link]

Obviously, these legislators do not limit speech because the public is sick of speaking. They do it simply because they can. There is not enough public outcry to stop them from gagging you.

If you enforce public silence, you can mistake it for acquiescence.

When I was on the BOC, I was proud of us for the open policy that allowed as many commenters at public comment as wished. (Unlike City Council, who placed limits on the number of speakers some time ago.) This was rarely used to extend our meetings noticeably except for a couple of very high-controversy events. Most comments were pertinent and related to immediate agenda items, while some of the public used the opportunity to alert us to certain issues. Roger Rayle, for example, gave some very good early alerts to the Pall-Gelman situation that were valuable and informative.

Sadly, I suspect that this limitation is a direct effect of Thomas Partridge’s abuse of the public comment privilege. I heartily embrace the right of the people to engage government but his use of the podium at every opportunity is self-indulgent and pointless.