"I don't think so," said Sullivan in recent interviews. "We give people other forums in other ways."

Sullivan said he does not want to end the public comment period on Mondays, but he said it's appropriate to limit the scope of comments at those meetings. "I think there's a real difference between a real meeting and our regular business meeting."

Sullivan said he attended a training session about meetings at the Washington State Association of Counties convention two weeks ago. Robert's Rules of Order requires courtesy and respect, he said.

What about the right to free speech? "Well, I think we have a right" to establish some guidelines, he said. That creates an implied contract, he said, in which speakers are agreeing, in effect, "I want to speak under those conditions."

"Otherwise, they'd use a different forum," Sullivan said. "This is an optional time period. We don't have to allow it.

"The most I ever do is remind people of what our expectations are," Sullivan said. "I don't dictate content for anyone.

"Any constructive criticism is always welcome," Sullivan said, but "I don't want character assassination of county staff. You don't know what people are going to say. Sometimes, I think people go a little too far."

"He's confusing decorum with censorship," responded Belenski, who has filed several lawsuits against county officials or agencies on open meetings or public records issues. This week, the county agreed to pay Belenski $350 in court costs and $1 in punitive damages to settle a 2006 suit he filed concerning the constitutionality of the county's sign ordinance.

In an interview, attorney Ford said the county's statement is vague, and he would have to look at all the facts to draw any conclusions. But if Sullivan is "cutting off people on a consistent basis," Ford said, that "would give me concerns. In an open forum, you cannot restrict the content."

In his March 24 letter to Palouse, Ford wrote, "A municipality may adopt a policy to prohibit personal attacks such as insults if they lead to disruption of the meeting," adding, "Personal insults should not be confused with insulting criticism over the conduct of public officials or employees."

As to the breadth of free speech, Ford wrote: "A municipality that deliberately allows a general public comment period during its meetings creates a limited public forum for constitutionally protected free speech. The city may not restrict speech it merely dislikes, but has some ability to limit public comment in a neutral manner," such as time and noise limits.

Sullivan, Thiersch, Belenski and D'Amico all said they feel time limits are a permissible restriction on speech.

Belenski said that people who praise county government are allowed to "talk all day without interruption."

Consequences of threats

Ford noted that state law allows a board to remove people from a meeting if they are disruptive, but "critical comments of government and government officials are not disruptive."

"You know disruptive comments when you hear them," Ford said. One example would be someone making a direct threat to harm someone.

Thiersch said the Washington Constitution allows people to say anything, provided they take responsibility for the consequences. "If I do make a threat there are consequences," he said, and besides, "People have a right to be upset."

"I've never witnessed a threat," said D'Amico. "I haven't seen people get that animated." But Commissioner John Austin said that sometimes, people make threats by implication, telling anecdotes about frustrated people they know, for example.

Sullivan expressed concerns over comments farmer Roger Short made earlier this year. "In the past, he's gone over the line," he said, but not recently. At the Nov. 23 public comment period, Short complained about flooding in Chimacum Valley, saying there was too much emphasis on helping salmon at the expense of farmers.

"I can't talk about [Community Development Director] Al Scalf?" Short asked. "No," said Sullivan. "Al Scalf is what killed my cheese factory," said Short.

"I can't talk about Al Scalf if I want to today?" asked the next speaker, D'Amico.

"You should address any concerns about employees to their supervisor or the county administrator," Sullivan answered. "You should talk about issues, not individuals, he added.

 "I don't want to be gaveled down," said D'Amico.

 "It's a difficult call when you're sitting up there," Johnson said. "It's hard for me to sit and listen to derogatory comments about the person, not the issue."

Johnson cautioned about pushing the rules for comments too far in either direction. "Mike [Belenski], frankly, I believe has been reasonable," he said, adding, "Most people are reasonable." He also said he could not recall Sullivan ever "gaveling down" a speaker altogether.

"One of my concerns," Johnson said, "is there are people in the community who would like to come to our Monday morning meetings but don't because of the tenor."