Request to End the Public Disclosure of Names and Addresses During Public Comment at St. Petersburg City  Council meetings

As I have written about previously, I think the current St. Petersburg City Council requirement to publicly provide your name and address is not appropriate or safe in today’s environment.  Below is my letter to the City Council. 

Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

Dear Council Members,

As you meet as a Committee of the Whole on May 29, 2025, I understand the agenda includes a review of the City Council Policy and Procedures Manual.

This presents a timely and important opportunity to align the City’s public comment policies with evolving safety, privacy, and accessibility standards.

I have previously written about this issue on NoHomeRun.com (now HomeRunsMatter.com),  and shared those thoughts with Council Members.  I am writing at this time to provide a more detailed and specific recommended change to the Policy and Procedure Manual.  

Current city policy for speaking at City Council meetings:

The City of St. Petersburg’s current public comment procedure requires individuals to provide their name and home or business address—both in writing and aloud.  This creates a public record that is livestreamed, archived, and permanently accessible to anyone. As a result, this policy exposes residents to unnecessary risk and may deter many from participating in the democratic process.  It makes me think  twice before speaking. 

Requested policy change and why

Senator Shevrin Jones said it best in the Tampa Bay Times:

“No one needs to know where you and your family live.”

And I would add: “No one needs to know your name.”

Specifically, I am requesting a change to the current requirement that speakers sign a form listing their name and address—entered into the public record—and verbally state that information when speaking. This outdated policy fails to reflect today’s realities:  public meetings are broadcast and permanently archived online. In our current environment of heightened political tension and digital exposure, such requirements can discourage civic engagement and increase the risk of harassment or intimidation.

No Florida statute requirement

Importantly, as I understand it, no Florida law requires that members of the public provide their name or address in order to speak at a government meeting. Florida’s Sunshine Law (Chapter 286, F.S.) guarantees the right to participate in public meetings.  And while it allows for “reasonable rules and policies” to govern decorum and procedure, I also understand it to not mandate personal disclosure. Likewise, the Public Records Law (Chapter 119, F.S.) (as I understand it) ensures transparency in government documents, but does not require cities to collect or publish personal information from residents who wish to speak. The decision to require such disclosure is a local policy choice—not a legal necessity.

Again, I understand it, Florida’s Public Records Law affirms that documents like speaker sign-in forms are public records when used for official purposes. That means names and addresses written on these forms—including my own—become publicly accessible unless protected by a specific exemption. However, there is no legal requirement to collect or disclose this information at all. If the City seeks to verify that speakers are residents, it can do so without exposing that information publicly.

Balancing policy with privacy

As a policy, it is reasonable that the city may want to limit public comment to City residents.  But requiring public disclosure of names and addresses to enforce that policy is not. This creates a chilling effect, especially for vulnerable individuals—survivors of domestic violence, people with unpopular viewpoints, or residents in politically divided neighborhoods—who may fear retaliation or exposure.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest

While safeguarding personal privacy is paramount, transparency remains essential, especially when speakers have a financial interest in the matters discussed.  Those with a conflict of interest, when speaking should be required to state their name and disclose the nature of the conflict of interest.  

A Balanced, Legally Sound Proposal

I propose the following revisions to City Council policy to preserve open civic participation while protecting individual privacy and safety:

• No Public Disclosure of Personal Information
  The City shall not require speakers to state their name, home or business address, or neighborhood aloud during public comment or open forums.  Those with conflicts of interest shall state their name and the nature of the conflict of interest. 

• Private, Confidential Residency Verification
  If public comment is limited to City residents, residency may be verified by completing a simple, confidential Residency Verification Form prior to the meeting. The form may request a street address and optional name but will not be entered into the public record.

  The Form shall include:
  Please check one:
  ___ I do not have a financial interest in the matter I intend to speak about
  ___ I (or my business/family) have a financial interest in the matter I intend to speak about and I will provide my name and I will disclose the nature of the interest during my public comments.

• Confidential Use of Verification Forms
  Residency forms will be viewed only by designated staff, not referenced publicly, and not included in meeting minutes. These forms may be destroyed after use or retained in accordance with administrative retention policies—but shall not be made public.

• Simplified Public Comment Process
  During public comment, individuals may simply state: “I am a resident of St. Petersburg.” No verbal disclosure of name or address and no public sign-in shall be required.

Suggested Policy Language:

“The City shall not require any speaker to publicly disclose their home or business address or neighborhood when participating in public comment. Such information, if requested, shall only be submitted on a confidential sign-in sheet used for administrative purposes and shall not be included in the public record.  However, any speaker who has a financial interest related to their public comment, should publicly disclose their name and the nature of their interest.”   

Conclusion

This proposal balances the City’s legitimate need to confirm residency in specific cases with the public’s right to participate safely and freely in civic life. It aligns with Florida law, addresses growing concerns around digital privacy, and promotes broader, more inclusive participation.

My request

I respectfully request that this matter be included in your May 29 policy review and the proposed policy be adopted. 

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to safe, equitable civic engagement.