Public comment: a right, a privilege, a forum for personal attack?

In February, in Missouri, a citizen expressed himself with a firearm, killing three city officials and two police officers. Since then Sonoma police and city officials have taken a fresh look at security. Now, as an extra precaution, during city council meetings, an officer of the law occasionally sits at the back of the room, at least during public comment. His presence calls to mind the potential danger of unbridled public sentiment and the security one feels in a civil setting where meetings are run according to established form. Respect is accorded those of varying opinions, and those who express those opinions with respect.
That sense of security was shaken here on March 19, in the Sonoma city council meeting, when a citizen rose to public comment and for over three searing minutes, uninterrupted except to be reminded of the time limit, leveled a personal attack, culminating with a threat, upon one of the council members. The object of the insults sat stone-faced, but observers squirmed, looked down, crossed legs, pulled at sleeves, and glanced at each other. What was going on? Should this be allowed?
Asked about the public safety aspect of a purely verbal attack, Sonoma Police Chief Bret Sackett mused cautiously, “This is a touchy subject.” He said that he had discussed the issue with Sgt. Thompson, the officer present at the meeting, and agreed it was disturbing. While no civil law had been broken, “My feeling is that there are better methods to address your displeasure than a verbal attack,” he said. “The most important part to me is that the person who is the recipient of such comments feels safe in our community.”
The Brown Act, by which the council is bound, protects the public’s right to know and to express. It also qualifies the public’s right to self expression, stating, in Section 54954.3, “Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public.”
Laurie Gallian, who has said she will run for city council, and who herself has been vocal about the mayor’s introduction of the annexation issue, said, “A personal attack on a council member not relating to council business, I would begin to question.”
Two-time mayor and long-time former city council member, Larry Barnett, was more definite. “I’ve seen it all in 12 years,” he said,” but where I drew the line was personal attack.” Personal attack, he said, is a misuse of the public comment period. “When I was mayor and a member of the public began to launch into a purely personal attack against any city staff or anybody else in the room,” he said, “I stopped it.” He explained that city council members tend to become “a sort of lightning rod for emotional content of individuals,” and to be criticized or have your decisions questioned is just part of the job. “On the other hand,” he said, “it is the purpose and responsibility of the meeting chair to maintain the decorum of the meeting. That means the decorum of the council and the decorum of the public.”
Mayor Joanne Sanders said that to her, at the time, freedom of speech was the determining issue and that she had been thinking of a law suit the city lost to someone who felt those rights had been violated. “I think it’s important for people to remember that we are neighbors,” she said. “And right now, today, in this moment in time, we are trying to represent the community as best we can. And sometimes we make decisions and we do things we do not agree with and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be respected as individuals.”