Improving Public Comment Through Clear Communication

At last night’s meeting of the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen, I spoke during the public comment portion to offer a small but meaningful suggestion regarding how public participation works in practice.

You can watch my full remarks here:

👉 Public Comment Video Clip https://www.youtubetrimmer.com/view/?v=-SmpHAoU4nI&start=7609&end=7720&loop=0

Why I Spoke

Earlier this month, Manchester Ink Link reported on updates to the Board’s update to Rule 3 of the Rules of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, which governs public comment. I believe that change was made in good faith and reflects a sincere effort to make City Hall more accessible to residents.

However, based on my experience attending meetings, there is still a gap that can unintentionally limit transparency.

Residents are given the opportunity to speak, but once public comment ends, there is no structured opportunity for the Mayor or Aldermen to briefly respond until much later in the meeting, often under New Business, if it happens at all. By then, the issue may no longer be fresh in everyone's head, the meeting may be running late, or the resident who raised the concern may have already left.

That disconnect can leave people wondering:

• Was the concern understood?

• Will it be referred to a committee or department?

• Is there somewhere they should follow up for help or information?

  
  

A Simple, Practical Suggestion

My proposal would provide the Mayor and Aldermen a brief, discretionary response period immediately after public comments conclude, strictly for informational purposes. This would give the Board the option to:

• Acknowledge concerns raised

• Clarify possible next steps

• Correct factual misunderstandings

• Direct residents to the appropriate committee, department, or source of additional information or assistance

Importantly, this would:

• Not extend public comment

• Not change the order of business

• Not allow back-and-forth discussion

• Remain entirely at the Mayor’s discretion

The goal is simple: pair public access with clear communication.

The Handout Provided to the Board

For transparency, below is the handout I provided to members of the Board following my remarks.

Proposed Amendment to Rule 3

Board of Mayor and Aldermen – Public Participation

Submitted by: Troy Micklon, Manchester, Ward 9

Purpose: Procedural clarification to improve transparency following public comment

Summary

Rule 3 (Public Participation) governs how members of the public address the Board but does not provide a structured opportunity for the Mayor or Aldermen to respond immediately following public comment.

This proposed amendment would allow a brief, discretionary response period after public comment concludes for the limited purpose of acknowledging concerns raised, clarifying next steps, correcting factual misunderstandings, or directing residents to the appropriate committee, department, or source of additional information or assistance.

The intent is to improve transparency and communication while preserving order, efficiency, and the existing rules of debate.

Proposed Rule Text

Add the following paragraph at the conclusion of Rule 3:

Following the conclusion of the public comment session, the Mayor may, at their discretion, permit brief responses from the Mayor or Aldermen for the limited purpose of acknowledging comments received, clarifying next steps, correcting factual misunderstandings, or directing residents to the appropriate committee, department, or source of additional information or assistance. Such responses shall not constitute debate, shall not extend public comment, and shall not permit further comment from the public during that session.

Clarification of Intent

This amendment:

• Does not reopen or extend public comment

• Does not permit debate with speakers

• Does not alter the order of business

• Does not require responses

• Preserves full discretion of the Chair

Its sole purpose is to allow brief acknowledgment and procedural clarity immediately following public comment.

Why This Matters

Good government is not just about allowing people to speak. It is also about helping residents understand how their concerns are handled.

Clear communication builds trust, reduces frustration, and helps residents engage more productively with their city government. This proposal is a modest procedural refinement, but one that could meaningfully improve how residents experience public participation.

I appreciate the Board’s consideration and look forward to continued, constructive dialogue on how Manchester can keep improving the way City Hall works for everyone.