Disagreeing with the County Board is not unusual for John Antonelli.

At County Board meetings, Antonelli is one of a handful of regular, almost constant speakers, often using props and photographs to criticize board policies or shortcomings of county government.

After the last board meeting, however, Antonelli finds himself fighting not just a specific policy. He’s fighting for his right to fight. “We’ve got a bunch of politicians who aren’t worried about getting reelected and now they decide they don’t want to interact with citizens,” he said.

At its organizational meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 1, the county board adopted its meeting procedures for 2003, a process that usually attracts little more than yawns from the New Year’s morning audience. It’s usually the furthest thing from controversial.

This year, however, board members incited the ire of their most vocal opponents, by trying to muzzle them, approving a new time limit on citizen comment.

In the past, any item on the agenda was open to public comment, limited to two minutes per person. It was a practice that gave almost unlimited opportunities to speakers, leading to some marathon meetings. Delays on board actions, due to lengthy public comment on consent items, led County Board members to threaten to impose a time limit last summer.

NOW, THEY’VE FOLLOWED through. On Jan. 1, the board voted to limit speakers to three minutes for the entire consent agenda, a list of up to 40 motions selected for quick approval by county staff prior to meeting days.

Before, if citizens wanted to address more than one item listed for consent approval - as Antonelli often does - they could county on two or three minutes scattered throughout Saturday morning; up to one hour, in some cases. Now, Antonelli will have to rush through all items in three minutes.

“What they’ve got now is wholly unworkable,” said Antonelli. “It’s an affront to the Arlington Way, and it shows the arrogance of the board members.”

Virginia law does not require local governments to allow public comment at all, so the board’s meeting procedures are well within the law. But that doesn’t mean the restriction isn’t cause for concern, said Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“There seems to be, particularly in Virginia, a somewhat alarming trend of cutting back on citizens’ ability to address public bodies,” he said. Antonelli agreed. “This has just gone way too far,” he said. “Before long we won’t be speaking on anything.”

CONVENIENCE AND EFFICIENCY demand that limits be placed on speaking time, said Monroe. Recent board meetings have lasted long into the night, often running well past the board’s 5 p.m. scheduled stopping point.

Monroe cited the Board’s Nov. 16, 2002 meeting, where debate on the consent agenda lasted almost two hours, as an example of excessive citizen comment. “The consent agenda is, by its very nature, an agenda full of noncontroversial items,” he said.

That’s common practice across the state, said Jim Campbell, executive director of the Virginia Association of Counties. “It is presumed that if an item is on the agenda, it has been properly [researched] by either the county staff or the board members so as not to warrant a lot of additional public input,” he said.

But Antonelli disagrees. “The consent agenda is not inconsequential items,” he said. Land use issues, site plans and funding appropriations all find their way onto consent agendas. At the Nov. 16 meeting Monroe cited, the consent agenda contained often contentious items like live entertainment licenses for local clubs and the acceptance of a $2 million grant for drug control efforts.

With contraints on citizen comment, what goes on the consent agenda will become even more of a concern, said Elise Kenderian, chair of the Arlington Republican Committee.

VIRGINIA LAW DOES require local jurisdictions to hear citizen comment at budget and tax rate hearings, but regular board meetings are different. That’s not likely to change, said Forrest Landon, Deputy Director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government. “Local government groups have opposed any requirement [of citizen comment] because they always contend one size won’t fit all.”

For instance, an issue before the board of a small rural county may affect only a few people. But in Arlington, where board decisions may affect thousands, limitations on public comment may be necessary. “I think it’s a practical matter,” said Landon. “There has to be a reasonable limit.”

Willis said he understands why local lawmakers enact those limitations. “For many public officials, the fact that citizens are allowed to speak… means that meetings become sloppy and a little bit longer than they would like,” he said. But chaotic meetings are a trademark of democratic government, and participation is more important than efficiency, he said.

Kenderian agreed. “If board members are upset about the length of the meetings, maybe they shouldn’t have run,” she said.

For Landon, the decision reinforces the principals of democratic government. “That’s got to be a judgment call by the government,” he said. “If the citizens don’t like it they can vote against them in the next election.”

ELECTIONS DON’T SCARE county board members, said Antonelli. In heavily-Democratic Arlington, the all-Democrat board faces little opposition each November.

Now, he said, the board members have decided they don’t want to hear opposition at their meetings, either. If the board really wanted to shorten meetings, said Antonelli, members should limit their own comments, not the comments of citizens.

“I think they should stop looking at us as the enemy and start looking at us as critical friends,” he said.

But the board has more important business than listening to critiques, whether friendly or not, said Campbell. “This is a meeting of the governing body, not a meeting of the citizens,” he said. “From my perspective, the five board members are the only ones that really need to talk.”

VACO represents all 95 counties in the state, so Campbell compared Arlington’s meeting procedures to those of other jurisdictions. “It’s very common for a board to set up in their bylaws… a restricted amount of time that a citizen can speak,” he said. “I find the Arlington process even now quite generous.”