O P I N I O N

THE SOAPBOX

Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.

At the January 20, 2026 meeting of the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen, I spoke during the public comment portion to offer a small but practical suggestion related to how public participation works in practice.

Earlier this month, Manchester Ink Link reported on changes the Board adopted to its rules at the start of the new term, including updates to Rule 3, which governs public comment. That reporting described how the Board revisited its public participation rules following past disruptions, and how additional modifications were discussed to balance order with public access.

According to the article, Ward 1 Alderman Bryce Kaw-uh advocated for changes intended to make it easier for residents to speak, even if they had not signed up in advance, emphasizing the importance of public access. Alderwoman At-Large June Trisciani also spoke in favor of broad participation, stating that elected officials should not be choosing who gets to speak and that residents should be able to address the Board on the topics they feel are important. A rule change was ultimately adopted that preserved a sign-up requirement while allowing flexibility for speakers after the initial list was exhausted.

I believe those changes were made in good faith and reflect a sincere effort by the Board to make City Hall more accessible to residents.

Based on my experience attending Board meetings, however, there remains a gap that can unintentionally limit transparency and understanding for residents who take the time to speak. While Rule 3 gives residents the opportunity to address the Board, once public comment concludes there is no structured opportunity for the Mayor or Aldermen to respond until much later in the meeting, often under New Business, if it happens at all. By then, the issue may no longer be fresh, the meeting may be running late, or the resident who raised the concern may have already left.

This can leave people wondering whether their concern was understood, whether it will be referred to a committee or department, or whether there is somewhere they should follow up for help or additional information.

I suggested a small procedural refinement that would allow a brief, discretionary response period immediately after public comments conclude. The goal is to give the Board an opportunity to acknowledge concerns raised, clarify possible next steps, correct factual misunderstandings, or direct residents to the appropriate committee, department, or source of additional information or assistance.

Importantly, this would not extend public comment, would not change the order of business, would not allow back-and-forth discussion, and would remain entirely at the Mayor’s discretion.

Following my remarks, I provided Board members with a short handout outlining a proposed clarification to Rule 3. The proposed language would allow brief responses after public comment for acknowledgment and clarity, while explicitly prohibiting debate or further public comment during that session.

Good government is not just about allowing people to speak. It is also about helping residents understand how their concerns are handled once they do. Clear communication builds trust, reduces frustration, and helps residents engage more productively with their local government.

This proposal is a modest procedural refinement, but one that could meaningfully improve how residents experience public participation at City Hall. It builds on the Board’s recent efforts to expand access while preserving order, efficiency, and decorum.

I appreciate the Board’s consideration and hope this idea contributes to continued, constructive discussion about how Manchester can keep improving the way City Hall works for everyone.

Troy Micklon lives in Ward 9 and was a candidate for alderman in his ward in the 2025 election.

Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Comment below using our DISQUS app. Got issues of your own? You an DIY your submission here for consideration.