Committee weighs bill to require public comment time at public meetings; cities, school boards raise concerns

On April 14 the House Committee on Rules held a public hearing on House Bill 3883, which would require a governing body of a public body to provide time for public comment at the beginning of every public meeting, except executive sessions.

Representative Kim Wallin (House District 6) described the bill’s intent as adding a statutory requirement that publicly elected bodies provide an opportunity for the public to comment during meetings. “I actually think there should be a requirement for publicly elected bodies who are making public laws and rules for the public to follow, that public comment should be a component of their meetings,” Wallin said, adding the bill as drafted uses the legal standard “reasonable” to define duration and specifies the comment period occur at the beginning so the public knows when to expect it.

Witnesses representing local governments and school districts said they generally support the concept but asked for changes to the bill’s language. Mark Landauer of the Special Districts Association of Oregon said special districts “support the intent” but warned a vague “reasonable” standard could be weaponized through complaints to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. He also urged comments be germane to the public body’s work.

Scott Winkles of the League of Oregon Cities said the League publishes a recommended model policy that already encourages two public comment sections at council meetings and suggested practical and logistical concerns with requiring the comment period at the start of every meeting. He noted moving comment away from the start can reduce disruptive online conduct during hybrid meetings and that municipalities sometimes must take items out of order for operational reasons.

Adrienne Anderson of the Oregon School Boards Association said districts share concerns about putting public comment at the beginning of meetings when bodies pay for legal advice in executive session; she urged flexibility so boards are not paying for waiting room time for attorneys. She also asked the committee to limit the bill’s scope to elected boards (for example, board of directors meetings) rather than applying it to all advisory or subcommittee meetings.

Committee members asked questions about definitions and operational implementation. Representative Wallin said she was open to amendments, including letting the governing body set a policy that establishes the duration and logistics for public comment and allowing written comments as an alternative.

Why it matters: supporters say the bill would establish a consistent baseline for public engagement across public bodies; opponents and neutral commenters argued the draft needs clearer limits on scope, timing and practical implementation to avoid unintended consequences such as emergency actions being delayed or the rule applying to small advisory committees.

No vote or committee recommendation was taken on HB 3883 during the hearing.