Washington County’s New Public Meeting Conduct Guidelines Are a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen (Opinion)

Washington County, Maryland, has introduced updated guidelines to regulate conduct during Board of County Commissioner meetings. These new rules aim to preserve order and decorum while ensuring that public participation remains structured and respectful. The changes outline specific behaviors that will not be tolerated and establish the process for enforcing these standards.

The guidelines specify that disruptive behaviors, including personal attacks, abusive language, obscenity, or remarks unrelated to county business, are strictly prohibited. Signs and visual displays are allowed if they do not exceed 12” x 24” in size and do not disrupt the meeting. Additionally, video recording is permitted during the citizens’ participation segment as long as it does not obstruct the view of other attendees or disrupt proceedings. Any violations of these rules may result in removal from the meeting at the discretion of the presiding officer or through a majority vote by the Board if the officer fails to act.

During the citizens’ participation portion of the meeting, which is broadcasted and lasts for 30 minutes, individuals wishing to speak must sign up before the meeting begins. Speakers are allotted three minutes, with no option to donate or pool time. The presiding officer has the discretion to extend the participation period if time permits. At the conclusion of this segment, the Board announces a recess before proceeding with its regular business.

While these measures aim to maintain order, I have significant concerns regarding the potential impact on free speech rights and the legal liability this policy may create for Washington County. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has documented similar cases across the country where vague decorum policies have been used to suppress dissent. FIRE has observed instances where public officials cited policies banning “abusive,” “obscene,” or “personally directed” comments to shut down criticism during public hearings, leading to lawsuits that challenged these actions as violations of the First Amendment. FIRE’s advocacy highlights the constitutional concerns surrounding overly broad policies that restrict public criticism of government actions. Their stance emphasizes that public meetings should allow for “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate, even if the feedback is critical or unpleasant.

Most people can agree that recent personal attacks at County meetings have been unpleasant, and counter-productive. We must absolutely find a way to return some sanity to county meetings. But we must not do so at the expense of Washington County taxpayers footing the bill for an avoidable legal settlement.

Opinion Article by Ken Buckler. All opinions are his own and do not reflect those of our clients or sponsors.

Information from Washington County Board of Commissioners and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

Associated documents for this story are available in our Public Information Archive.

---