The Rockville Mayor and Council removed a proposed resolution establishing rules of decorum from the council agenda and delayed further action after hours of public comment protesting the measure.

The council voted during its agenda review to pull agenda item 11A — described in the agenda packet as “approval of resolution adopting rules of decorum and protocol” — and said the item will be considered at a later date. City staff had noted the item’s removal publicly at the start of the meeting. "We removed agenda item 11A, approval of resolution adopting rules of decorum and protocol," a staff member told the council and audience.

Why it matters: dozens of residents used the council’s community forum to criticize the proposal, saying decorum rules have historically been used to suppress dissent and that the draft would give the presiding officer unchecked power to limit speech. Speakers tied the issue to ongoing local fights over rent stabilization and other policies, saying strict decorum could silence historically underrepresented voices.

During community forum, speakers repeatedly urged the council to abandon the proposal. "In a time where the First Amendment is in national peril, it is absolutely mind‑boggling that a council member would push now on a local level for measures that suppress free speech," said Jamie N., who identified herself as a Rockville resident. Several speakers said the proposed measures would bar clapping, limit when residents may sign up to speak, or otherwise curb expressive activity at meetings.

Council members and staff responded publicly during and after the forum. City Attorney Robert Dawson said the draft rules were prepared by the Office of the City Attorney and described their intended purpose: "The purpose of the rules ... was to consider adopting reasonable, content‑neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to facilitate the body's interest in orderly, efficient, and productive meetings. It was not for the purpose of violating the First Amendment rights of any community members," Dawson said.

Councilmembers said they had voted as a group to pull the item earlier in the day so the body and staff could do more work. Several council members, including Councilmember Jackson and Councilmember Van Grama, emphasized they support free speech and that the vote to remove the item reflected concern about broad restrictions on community forum speech.

Public complaints and calls for council accountability also played a role in the discussion. Multiple speakers alleged that a council member had repeatedly used aggressive language toward constituents during off‑dais encounters; some said the council should first address conduct by elected officials before imposing stricter rules on public commenters.

How the council said it will proceed: the mayor closed the community forum by thanking speakers and saying the council would continue to prioritize open public comment. Council members signaled they want additional staff work and review before any rules return to a future agenda.

What was not decided: the council did not adopt any new rules at the meeting. The council's action was limited to removing the item from the evening’s consent/regular agenda for later consideration. No formal restrictions were imposed and no ordinance or resolution was adopted that evening.

Looking ahead: the city attorney and staff will rework materials and the council expects additional discussion at a later meeting. Council members asked for more time to review the draft and for staff to report back on implications for First Amendment protections and enforcement protocols.

Ending: After a lengthy public forum and responses from staff and council members, the meeting moved on to other agenda items; the decorum proposal will return for further study at a later date.