Lansford Borough Council wants to adopt rules governing who can speak at a public meeting and how their meetings are recorded.

Council President Bruce Markovich said Tuesday that the proposed policy is an effort to stop people from outside the area, who are not taxpayers or property owners from speaking at a meeting.

“We can’t have them coming to our meetings and speaking,” he said. “We’re not required to allow them to speak.

“We are not a sounding box for these people from out of the area.”

The proposed policy limits comments to Lansford residents and taxpayers, and those who wish to speak need to sign in before a meeting starting.

Resident Tom Vadyak said that when he served on council that they had to allow someone from another community to speak per the solicitor. Markovich said the current solicitor disagrees.

Councilman Joe Butrie pointed out that the new policy also addresses recording or videotaping meetings.

“They must let us know that they’re doing it,” he said. “They just can’t stand there with a camera. They got to let us know they’re recording.”

Councilwoman Michele Bartek disagreed, saying that people are allowed to record, if it’s a public meeting.

Residents suggested checking with the state before moving forward, or moving forward and seeing if someone challenges the rules.

A media law attorney for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association found numerous issues with the borough’s proposed policy.

The proposed policy addresses who can speak; signing in; time limits; directives from the council president; who a commenter may address; deferring public comments; and video and audio recording equipment placement.

Comments are limited to agenda items only, unless permitted by council under the proposed policy.

“The Sunshine Act requires the agency to accept public comment on matters that ‘are or may be’ before the board,” Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel, said Wednesday.

“Matters that ‘are’ before the board are agenda items, but matters that ‘may be’ before the board would likely not be on the agenda, but could still be very relevant issues of agency business,” she said.

Melewsky said that the law is broad and allows the public to bring issues to the attention of public officials during public comment.

“Any policy that limits public comment to agenda items only would be inconsistent with the Sunshine Act,” she said, adding that some agencies have public comment on agenda items and another time for non-agenda items, which is usually at the end.

Melewsky also found items regarding how commenters address council, outside threats and raise issues under both the Sunshine Act and First Amendment.

“The First Amendment does not generally tolerate government attempts to control the content of free speech, and this policy attempts to do just that,” Melewsky said. “It outright prohibits the public’s ability to comment to any public official other than the chairperson, and that kind of limitation is also constitutionally suspect.

“Of course, decorum and reasonableness should be the guiding principle for interactions between public officials and citizens they serve.

“But the Constitution allows people to be upset, impertinent, use curse words and be otherwise unpleasant in public forums as long as the speech doesn’t cross into threats.”

The policy also allows for public comments to be deferred, which is allowed under the Sunshine Law, Melewsky said.

However, the policy also appears to allow council to vote, or take official action, when comments are deferred, which is not allowed, she said.

“If an agency defers public comment, it must also defer any official action until after public comment has completed,” said Melewsky, noting that the public must be able to comment before action is taken. “That aspect of the policy should be revised.”

Latter portions of the policy address audio and video recording, including the name and contact information of a person recording and if it’s on behalf of an individual, group or company.

The policy also limits placement of the equipment; prohibits supplement lighting; and prevents the person from moving the equipment around the room during the meeting.

“The Sunshine Act allows anyone who attends a public meeting to record all the proceedings, and any recording made is private property not subject to government control or oversight,” Melewsky said.

Requiring people to submit their name, contact information and organization is not reasonable and should be removed, she said.

“The policy implies the agency could exercise control over the person or recording, neither of which is appropriate,” Melewsky said, noting it could also discourage people from exercising their right to record, which runs afoul of the law.

She also found the policy unreasonable if it restricts the ability of the person using the recording equipment from seeing, hearing or recording all of the proceeding.

“For example, if the location of the recording devices … does not allow one to see the face of the person giving public comment or hear their voice clearly, that’s an unreasonable limitation,” Melewsky said. “There has to be a clear line of sight and access to clear audio, and that might mean moving about in the room, depending on the placement of recording devices.”

Borough council could adopt the new policy at their meeting Wednesday night.