Quiet, please?

Pity the members of the North Richland Hills City Council.

Vocal residents have decided that they don't like a lot of what a majority of the council members do. As a group, they weren't powerful enough to take control of the council in May's city election, but they're not at all shy about continuing to voice their complaints.

Now the council members have adopted some new rules. They've expanded the time allowed for residents to speak at council meetings (30 minutes instead of the former 20 minutes), but speakers will be given written notice that they are not allowed to voice any complaints attacking the mayor or any individual member of the council or city staff.

The reason behind the rule is understandable -- after all, these sessions can be downright uncomfortable for anyone who might be the target of a resident's complaints. And, no doubt, some of the complaints may be politically motivated.

But all of that comes with the territory. Residents who are upset about what an elected official or a public employee has done should be able to go to the council meeting and tell that person so, face to face. It's called free speech, and nowhere is that more crucial than when addressing the deeds of public officials.

True, there are polite (but still direct) ways to exercise free speech, and there are ugly ways. What the council is upset about is those people who seem determined to consistently pick the ugly ways.

However, public officials just don't get to decide what people can say to them. Most people will be polite, but those who choose otherwise can't be silenced.

Another of the new rules adopted in North Richland Hills is that only the mayor and city attorney can speak for the city about pending lawsuits. There is some fear that comments by other council members might be detrimental.

It's fine to say that only the mayor or city attorney can voice an official position, but that doesn't cancel the free speech rights of other council members. Muzzles just don't work well in the public arena.