Currently, the city allows public comments for three minutes per person at the beginning of council meetings, but only on agenda business items. A three-minute period for general comments follows at the very end of the council meeting.

This requires residents to wait until the very end of meetings before addressing concerns not on the agenda to the council. It also prevents them from re-addressing an issue for a month and a half.

Why? Some background:

For years, the council has had an awkward if not questionable approach to hearing from residents at meetings.

State statute does not require city councils to permit public comments, however the League of Minnesota Cities encourages city councils to permit public comments at council meetings and considers allowing comment as a "best practice."

Cities are given latitude as to how they will regulate public comments. Currently, the city of North Mankato allows public comments for three minutes at the beginning of council meetings, but only on agenda business items. A three-minute period for general comments follows at the very end of the council meeting.

A 2014 agenda shows two unrestricted public comment periods and no time or subject restrictions. By 2017, however, public comments were allowable only on business items and the second opportunity to address the council in a meeting was removed unless residents had called and got the mayor’s permission in advance to address the council.

At that time, 90-day period was instituted before a resident could address the council on the same issue again. Finally, the League of Minnesota Cities advised the city in a workshop to revise its public comments rules and reinstate at least some regular public comment period.

With the election of Scott Carlson as mayor, two unrestricted three-minute comment periods were reinstated, one at the beginning of the meeting, and one at the end. A 45-day restriction on re-addressing a previous comment was instituted.

However, as of March 2026, restriction of the first comment was reinstated, again limiting it to agenda items only. This again requires residents to sit through an entire meeting of indeterminate length before having the opportunity to make a non-business agenda comment at the end of the meeting.

We ask: When residents respectfully wish to address the council on items of public concern, what possible benefit is provided by limiting topics or times? Moreparticipation in the democratic process — not less — benefits both the council and the community.