Duluth councilors propose splitting public comment, ending meetings at 10 p.m.

Councilor Roz Randorf introduced a resolution March 6, 2026, joined by Councilors Jordon Johnson, Arik Forsman and Diane Desotelle, to rewrite Duluth’s standing rules and restructure the public comment period at City Hall. The measure would split speakers into two groups and, in one account, set a hard stop at 10:00 p.m.; the council will consider the proposal at its Monday, March 9 city council meeting.

Under current practice, members of the public speak toward the start of each regular meeting and are given three minutes to address any issue of their choice, a procedural baseline the proposed rewrite would change. The resolution would create a first public‑comment segment for speakers addressing that evening’s agenda items, who would speak before the council takes action, and a second segment for non‑agenda topics, which would occur after the council finishes its work for the evening.

Randorf framed the split as a tool for focused deliberation, saying, “We have two distinct periods in this proposal,” and adding, “Agenda items deserve focused deliberation before we vote. And non‑agenda items deserve space that’s not rushed.” Randorf also told reporters, “I think we’ve done a really nice job of updating these standing rules to allow to protect the public and allow us to really do meaningful work, because we have to work with city, we have to work with staff, we have to work with our fellow councilors, and we have to work with the public.”

Co‑sponsor Arik Forsman said the change is not aimed at any single constituency, asserting, “This doesn’t get into any one constituent group. It doesn’t hit any one topic. Obviously, there’s been some interesting visuals coming out of this chamber over the last couple of months, but this is something that needed to happen regardless of any of those more contentious meetings.” Forsman also described the plan as an effort to “organize it in a way where we’re not shutting public comment off, we’re reorganizing the meeting so that we address the business of the city first.”

Supporters say the rewrite is meant to reduce disruptions and allow the council and staff to do “meaningful work.” One account of the proposal explicitly lists a 10:00 p.m. end time as a target for meetings, framed as a way to minimize disruptive behavior; another account describes the change only as shortening meetings so the council will “wrap up an hour earlier” without setting a specific clock time.

The plan has drawn vocal pushback from regular attendees. Eleanor Dolan, who has attended recent city meetings, said, “when we see that contention at council, it’s because the public doesn’t feel heard during their public comments.” Dolan added, “It felt to me like it was this was almost a retaliation for so much public engagement at council. My biggest concern is just like the continual policing of what we can say and when we can say it,” and warned, “I think my concern with public comment being at the end of the meetings is that counselors can leave. So that means that councilors can filibuster and prevent certain public comments from being heard.” On social media a user listed as “snoo” wrote, “What do you all think? It seems like it will have the effect of reducing the number of people raising issues the council would rather not hear about.”

Duluth’s At‑large Councilor Terese Tomanek thanked Randorf and the co‑sponsors for bringing the resolution forward, acknowledging work by Desotelle, Forsman and Jordon Johnson. With formal consideration set for the March 9 agenda at City Hall, the resolution’s text will determine whether a 10:00 p.m. clock time, changes to individual three‑minute limits, or any new registration or attendance rules are adopted; sponsors say the goal is order and fairness, while critics say the change risks narrowing who gets heard.