If you don’t like the way the County Board conducts public-comment sessions, come up with an alternative proposal.
That was the message from Board Chair Takis Karantonis on July 19, as the governing body again received criticism for limiting speakers at public-comment sessions to one per topic.
“You’re welcome to propose something that works better,” Karantonis said to the critics. He suggested they do so in the fall, so it could be considered when the 2026 Board convenes in January.
Friction between a County Board chair and those trying to skirt the one-speaker-per-topic rule is almost a tradition in Arlington governance. Over the years, some chairs have offered broader leeway than others in interpreting the rule.
Karantonis, who in January rotated in for his first one-year stint as Board chair, also is following a pattern — first-year chairs tend to be more heavy-handed in wielding the gavel in enforcing rules than those who are in their second or third go-arounds.
Karantonis said the July 19 agenda included 52 action items, including six public hearings. He said allowing public comment to run interminably was unfair to those waiting for those items to be discussed.
“It’s about flagging issues — not to provide a forum for extensive debate,” Karantonis said of the public-comment period that kicks off the 9:30 a.m. Saturday board meetings.
Among those using the public-comment period over the past year have been Palestinian advocates, who have urged Board members to adopt a resolution in solidarity and to direct Arlington Economic Development not to participate in state efforts connected to Israel.
Board members, to date, have rebuffed both requests, and the advocates return at most meetings to continue their advocacy.
At the June public-comment period, tempers on both the board dais and among some speakers flared. In July, the mood was less confrontational.
Board member Matt de Ferranti picked up on the “measurably different” tone at the July meeting.
“I’m grateful, for what that’s worth,” he said.
At the July meeting, speaker Sam Laveson urged looser rules on the public-comment period.
“Input allows for more issues to be addressed proactively rather than reactively,” he said. “Anyone who pays taxes to the county should be able to have a direct way to have community input to decision-makers whose salaries their tax dollars fund.”
If advocates for a more free-wheeling approach to public comment are seeking an ally on the Board, they may look toward J.D. Spain, Sr. At the July 19 meeting, he seemed to signal an openness to discussing public-comment changes.
“We’ve really got to look at what the future holds, especially in moments like this when people want to be heard,” Spain said.
Karantonis, and last year’s Board chair Libby Garvey, both regularly told advocates there are multiple ways to communicate concerns to elected officials, such as “Open-Door Monday” events hosted by individual Board members.
Those, however, are conducted out of sight of the public, while Board meetings have a potential worldwide audience through online streaming.
Across Northern Virginia, different governing bodies have settled on their own rules for taking general public comment.
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which typically conducts a public-comment session at the end of select meetings, limits the number of total speakers — which the Arlington County Board does not — but does not have a one-speaker-per-topic rule. Nor does the Arlington School Board, which allows public comment in the early part of most of its public meetings.
Advocates supporting Palestinians have pressed their case before both those bodies, as well, though not as frequently as they have descended on County Board meetings.
Neither Arlington School Board members nor Fairfax supervisors typically respond to speakers’ comments, as County Board members do. After the last public-comment speaker at Fairfax meetings ends testimony, Board Chair Jeff McKay typically takes no more than five seconds to gavel the meeting concluded.
Public-comment periods provided by the governing bodies are separate from input received from the community during public hearings on specific action items under consideration.
