By DAN TOMASELLO

LYNNFIELD — The School Committee voted 3-2 to approve a revised public participation policy during a Dec. 10 meeting.

The Policy Subcommittee, which consists of School Committee Vice Chair Jenny Sheehan and Committeeman Jim Dillon, proposed last month that the “Public Comment at School Committee Meetings Policy” include a new provision that will allow people to speak for up to five minutes. During a September meeting, the school board unanimously voted to remove the previous three-minute time limit for speakers from Policy BEDH.

School Committee member Jamie Hayman said he had “gone back-and-forth” on the proposed policy change because he was originally for adding a five-minute time limit into the policy last August.

“I went back and watched the Aug. 21 School Committee meeting when we had this discussion,” said Hayman. “I am now curious what changed because the comments that were made on the 21st were emphatic. I think honestly changing it midstream because we don’t like the outcome of it is a dangerous precedent to set.”

Hayman recalled previous statements that Dillon, Sheehan and School Committee Chair Kristen Grieco Elworthy made that were supportive of not having time limits for public participation.

“Jim, you talked about the fact that ‘this is a basic fundamental right’ and ‘if taxpayers and citizens want to express themselves about something about the School Department that is important to them, they should have the right to do that,’” said Hayman. “Jenny, you said you didn’t want to put a ‘muzzle’ on people. And Kristen, you said, I don’t mind if we sit here for hours. My question is what has changed with all of this because it feels like hypocrisy to me.”

Elworthy said she proposed the new five-minute speaking limit.

“I got feedback from the community about how long they were sitting and listening,” said Elworthy. “I think I raised these concerns in the initial discussion, which were people come in to speak and then if people are going on for quite some time, they’re waiting an hour. I don’t mind sitting here for hours, but I have heard from teachers who have watched and residents who have watched that they mind sitting here for hours. I also did say at the time and I still maintain this that having some kind of parameters around your time is helpful in being articulate. I have heard feedback, negative feedback, around the way we have done it so far.”

Hayman said Elworthy was right that she was supportive of incorporating a time limit into the policy last August.

“You did say that. I will be fair,” said Hayman.

Sheehan said the proposed five-minute limit was “being fair to people.”

“I know I saw there was one person that had to leave at one point because they were waiting here to speak, and there was someone else taking up a lot of time,” said Sheehan.  “I think 90 percent or more of people who have come to speak, including some people who are here tonight, they would be fine in a five-minute time or they’ve been fine. And there is no one saying that people can’t come and speak, or can’t get their time in. We are also way more accessible than former School Committees have been in terms of having coffee hours and things like that. There are definitely ways that people can get their feedback heard and be reached. Again, I don’t want to put a muzzle on people, as I said. We want them to come and speak. I think five minutes is appropriate. If we see that is a problem, it can also be discussed again as well.”

School Committee member Kate DePrizio said she was against incorporating a five-minute minute time limit into the “Public Comment at School Committee Meetings Policy.”

“I think the thought of timing someone and creating that boundary is borderline censorship,” said DePrizio. “That is just my personal opinion. As chair, you have sole discretion to move something forward or if something gets off track, so I would’ve liked us to stay more in alignment with where we started. I would have liked us to still be having, you know, kind of what we talked about the Lynnfield way. This is what Lynnfielders wanted of us, to be able to come and express themselves freely. I would have liked us to stick with no time limit.”

Elworthy said she discussed the proposed policy change with the town attorney.

“I do need to be equitable in how I manage the time,” said Elworthy. “If I let one person go for 20 minutes, I have to let everybody go for 20 minutes. We have to be talking about things under School Committee purview. Someone can’t come here and talk about paving. Outside of that, I don’t have the purview to say, ‘Hey, we are going to wrap it up.’ I can ask nicely, but having this makes this more equitable. I think three minutes is a little tight, but five minutes is a lot of time to speak. That is my personal opinion.”

While Hayman stressed that, “I am and have always been for a time limit,” he reiterated that he was “not for switching it midstream.”

“The time to do that is after the next committee is elected in, in my opinion,” said Hayman.

DePrizio recalled that Elworthy recently switched public participation from the beginning of the School Committee’s meetings to the end. She inquired if public participation will remain at the end of the school board’s meetings or will be switched back to the beginning.

Elworthy said public participation will remain at the end of the School Committee’s meetings for the time being.

“Part of the reason is because participation is going on for so long and we had teachers waiting for us,” said Elworthy. “It was out of consideration for the teachers and the staff that are here. I do have the discretion to move it around, so it is at the end for now.”

In response to a question from DePrizio, Elworthy said public participation will remain at the end of the School Committee’s meetings “for the foreseeable future.”

“There is nothing in our policies where it says where it has to go,” said Elworthy.

After the discussion, Elworthy, Sheehan and Dillon approved incorporating the five-minute time limit for public participation into Policy BEDH. Hayman and DePrizio voted no.

During the public participation portion of the meeting, former School Committee member Phil McQueen criticized the new five-minute time limit.

“I do agree with Jamie and Kate on this one,” said McQueen. “We did move things around in the past so that people were able to speak at the beginning and speak for longer. I think that is a good idea.”

Phillips Road resident Deirdre Donovan agreed.

“While I understand that five minutes may make sense, sometimes how things look and how they are perceived send important messages to the community,” said Donovan. “I think the timing of changing the policy is suspect.”