BIDDEFORD — While the mayor says changes made to the rules of the City Council in January have so far done what they were intended to do – bring civility back to city meetings – some feel the changes are too restrictive of free speech.

Last year, the municipal officers meetings that occurred alongside City Council meetings – during which residents are allowed to speak on any topic, and not just agenda items – were at times filled with yelling and swearing as allegations of child sexual abuse against two ex-Biddeford police officers boiled over. More than one meeting was abruptly adjourned because of behavior deemed inappropriate.

Those who have attended the last three City Council meetings or watched them on public access television may have noticed quite the change – a lack of unrestricted public comment altogether.

At its Jan. 5 meeting, the council voted 8-1 to amend its rules so municipal officers meetings will only be held when needed, such as when a restaurant is seeking a liquor license.

According to state law, certain items, such as liquor license applications, must be voted on during municipal officers meetings as opposed to regular council meetings.

“It’s reduced the amount of slander, name calling and wild accusations,” Mayor Alan Casavant said of the changes on Monday. “It has introduced more professionalism and courtesy into the mix, the way it should be.

“Quite frankly, I think the majority of people in Biddeford were tired of the atmosphere they were watching. It became a horrible situation to be in, and there was no need for that.”

Casavant said in the past, municipal officers meetings were held alongside council meetings “for as long as (he) can remember,” with the exception of a brief period last year, when they were given their own day of the month.

While the public can still speak about an agenda item at any council meeting, the changes have left some worried that public comment is being restricted too much.

“I understand the frustration expressed by both the public and the council concerning the disruption of council meetings that occurred last year. I too was very disappointed in these disruptions of the city’s business,” said Councilor Michael Ready, who was the only councilor to vote against the changes, in an email Monday. “I do, however, think that there are other ways to control those situations other than (by) severely limiting public input.”

That said, Ready said he has not heard from a lot of community members who have been angered by the changes. Other councilors have observed the same.

“I haven’t heard from a lot of people from the public who were upset that the public speaking portion has been (limited),” Councilor Bob Mills said Monday.

Mills, who in the past has fought efforts to limit opportunities for public comment, said meetings “got way out of hand” when it came to public comment last year, and that influenced his decision this year. If things change and there is a large outcry from the community to reexamine the rules, Mills said it would be worth doing.

Given the changes, Casavant and Mills both stressed the alternative means by which residents can share their opinions with city officials.

“With today’s technology, people are just a phone call or an email away, so there’s ample opportunity to contact city officials,” Casavant said.

“There’s plenty of means people have to contact their city councilor,” said Mills. On the city’s website, email addresses and phone numbers are listed for each councilor.

For some, however, being told to privately communicate their concerns about the community raises questions about how effectively those concerns will be addressed when there is no guarantee they will be heard by everyone who attends council meetings or tunes in to public access.

“What the council is doing is essentially trying to turn back the clock and say, ‘We’re not totally disinterested in the little people and we’re in the book, so you can call us up if you have a particular gripe … and tell us individually what your thoughts are, and that conversation will be between you and me,’” said Biddeford resident Richard Rhames on Monday.

Rhames, who was a city councilor from 1999 to 2001 and again from 2011 to 2013, said a similar restriction to public comment was implemented in the early 2000s but later reversed.

The council’s Jan. 5 vote encompassed other changes to the rules of the City Council as well, including only allowing residents of Biddeford to address the council at municipal officers meetings and limiting their speaking time to three minutes from five minutes.

— Staff Writer Angelo J. Verzoni can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 329.