Imagine this scenario: A public board hears presentations from the public.  The first presenter exceeds the 5 minute limit stipulated in the Procedure Bylaw, but the Chair does not intervene, for fear of political backlash.  With this precedent set, it becomes difficult to enforce the rules later on.  Knowing they will not be interrupted, some presenters speak for as long as an hour or even longer.  The meeting ends very late with only few speakers being heard.  An extra meeting is scheduled to hear the overflow speakers.

Most people view such situations as political reality and don’t even question the validity of the Chair’s decision not to enforce the rules.  In fact, such situations are like highway robbery:  Everyone is forced to listen to lengthy and sometimes boring soap-box speeches and is robbed of an extra evening.  The organization is effectively robbed of staff time and the costs of an extra meeting, for which the entire community pays with its tax dollars.  Is it fair to tolerate this reality for the sake of avoiding political backlash? 

Clearly, when hearing the public, councils and boards must balance the important right of citizens to be heard with the right of the community as a whole to a fair, equal and sensible process.  The Chair should never be motivated by a desire to prevent criticism, but by a deep commitment to the principles of fairness, equality and common sense.  Each speaker should get the same opportunity to speak, and the Procedure Bylaw should be followed consistently for all. 

How can this be accomplished?  First, the Chair should articulate the rules and time limits before presentations commence.  He or she should advise the public that the rules will be enforced equally.  As presentations unfold, the Chair should remind individuals how much time they still have: “You have two minutes left,” then “You have one minute left,” and then “Your time is up.  We need to move on to the next speaker.”