A local resident was escorted out of the Amarillo College Board of Regents meeting Tuesday night after a disagreement over the board’s public comment procedures. The incident unfolded shortly after Board Chairman Jay Barrett announced that the public comment portion of the meeting had concluded.
The citizen, identified as John Adair, attempted to address the board despite not having signed up to speak prior to the meeting. According to Barrett, Amarillo College policy requires individuals to register ahead of time if they wish to offer public comment. Barrett said no additional residents had signed up, and he formally closed the comment period before Adair approached the microphone.
Adair objected, arguing that the board’s sign-up requirement violated state law and improperly restricted public participation. “You can’t demand it,” Adair said, insisting that he had a right to speak without advance registration. As he approached the podium, Barrett reminded him that public comment was already closed and that the rules applied uniformly to all attendees.
Barrett encouraged Adair to sign up for a future meeting if he wished to share his remarks, noting that the board would be willing to listen at that time. But Adair pressed to speak immediately, contending that the board’s procedures were too restrictive. Barrett, however, remained firm. When Adair again insisted on being allowed to address the board, Barrett responded simply, “No,” reiterating that board policy would be followed.
A law enforcement officer attending the meeting then approached Adair, who continued to argue his case briefly before being escorted out. The meeting resumed once Adair was removed from the room.
The dispute comes amid a broader local conversation about public participation in government meetings. Concerns over access to comment periods have surfaced in several recent gatherings involving public boards and commissions. Last Friday, citizens protested at a meeting of the Center City Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors after public comment was restricted there as well. Attendees at that meeting argued that elected and appointed bodies should provide more open opportunities for community members to speak, especially when decisions involve taxpayer dollars or have direct neighborhood impacts.
In Amarillo, the rules governing public comment vary among different governmental entities, and enforcement of procedures can differ depending on the chair or presiding official. Some boards require advanced sign-up to ensure orderly meetings, while others allow in-person requests to speak as long as time permits. Supporters of stricter procedures argue that orderly sign-up processes help boards manage time, maintain decorum, and ensure that meetings can move efficiently through scheduled agendas. Critics counter that rigid requirements can create unnecessary barriers for citizens, particularly those unfamiliar with procedural rules or those who decide to speak only after hearing discussion during the meeting.
As of Wednesday, Amarillo College officials had not released additional statements about the incident. It remains unclear whether the board plans to revisit its public comment policies in light of the recent disputes. For now, Tuesday night’s confrontation highlights the ongoing tension between maintaining orderly public meetings and ensuring accessible civic participation—an issue increasingly visible across local government bodies in Amarillo and beyond.
Texas Public Comment Law Overview
Texas public comment rights are established under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) and strengthened by House Bill 2840. Together, these laws guarantee members of the public the opportunity to address a governmental body about items listed on a meeting agenda.
Key Provisions
1. Right to Speak on Agenda Items
Governmental bodies must allow the public to comment on any agenda item, either before or during the body’s discussion of that item.
2. Protection of Public Criticism
Public officials cannot prohibit criticism of the governmental body, its policies, procedures, programs, or services. The only exceptions are forms of speech that are otherwise illegal (such as defamation or true threats).
3. Reasonable Rules for Conduct
Governmental bodies may adopt “reasonable rules” to maintain order and efficiency. These rules may include:
Time limits for each speaker
Advance sign-up requirements
Directing comments to the presiding officer (e.g., mayor, chair)
Removal of individuals who are actively disruptive
All such rules must be applied fairly and consistently.
4. Viewpoint Neutrality
Any rule governing public comment must be viewpoint-neutral. Governmental bodies cannot impose different rules—or limit participation—based on a speaker’s opinion or the content of their remarks.
5. Comments on Non-Agenda Items
TOMA does not require public bodies to accept comments on topics not listed on the agenda. However, many provide an “open forum” at their discretion.
If comments on non-agenda items are allowed, officials may not deliberate on those topics during that meeting. They may only:
Make a brief factual statement
Make a brief policy statement
Propose placing the issue on a future agenda
6. Translation Services
If a public body imposes time limits, a speaker using a translator must be given at least twice the allotted time to ensure equal access.
7. Recording Rights
Members of the public may record an open meeting—audio or video—as long as they comply with reasonable rules designed to prevent disruption.
.webp)
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).png)
