AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 44-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the opportunity to provide public comment at a meeting of a public entity.
SB 2180 creates a new section in North Dakota’s open meetings/public records chapter requiring every regular meeting of a city, county, township, school district, park district, or water resource district governing body to include an opportunity for public comment. The bill also requires a person who comments to provide their name and address in writing, while making the address an exempt record.
The measure gives these local governing bodies limited authority to manage public comment. They may restrict comment by speaker time, total comment time, or by limiting topics to the current and immediately preceding meeting agendas. In addition, each governing body must adopt a public-comment policy for regular meetings, and that policy may require comments to be relevant to the entity’s business, orderly, non-defamatory, non-abusive, non-harassing, and lawful. The policy may also prohibit comment when another procedure exists for the issue, when confidential or exempt information would be disclosed, or when comment is otherwise barred by law.
The bill amends chapter 44-04 of the North Dakota Century Code by adding a statewide requirement for public-comment opportunities at regular meetings of specified local public entities. It affects the procedural rules for local governing bodies by standardizing when public comment must be allowed and by setting baseline limits on how those comments may be administered. It also creates a new record-handling rule by treating a commenter’s address as exempt from disclosure.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the Senate 43-4 and the House 93-0, indicating strong bipartisan approval and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. No committee transcripts were provided, but the vote totals suggest the measure was generally viewed favorably as a transparency and participation bill with manageable procedural limits.
The main points of potential contention are the balance between public access and meeting control. Supporters would likely favor the guaranteed opportunity for public comment and the transparency benefits, while any concerns would center on the required disclosure of a commenter’s name and address, the exemption of the address from public records, and the authority given to governing bodies to limit comments by topic, time, or policy. The bill also allows public comment to be restricted or prohibited in certain circumstances, which could be viewed as necessary for orderly meetings by some and as a constraint on participation by others.