Since last fall, Festus City Council meetings have regularly drawn angry and frustrated comments from the public largely due to a proposed data center development in town.
On Monday, the City Council discussed adopting rules of decorum that would limit the time of individual speakers and the length of the public comment period.
CRG of St. Louis announced in late 2025 its plan to develop a data center on 361 acres north of Hwy. 67 and west of Hwy. CC in town.
For a while since the fall, speakers in support of and against the project would come to the podium to air their views during the remarks section of city meetings. Over time, the section became dominated by data center project opponents as the project of CRG of St. Louis progressed to a March 31 meeting when 27 people spoke for about two hours against the project prior to a council vote on a data center development agreement between the city and CRG. No visitor spoke for the project that night.
On Monday night, 25 residents spoke during the public comments section. The remarks took about two hours.
Immediately before the Monday night meeting, the council had held a work session to discuss a resolution that would limit the length of the public comments section, as well as the amount of time each resident would have to speak.
Under the proposed resolution:
■ People could sign up to speak on any topic related to city business until 2 p.m. the day of the regular meeting. That would be a change from the existing rule in which they could register until 5 p.m. the Wednesday before the meeting on non-agenda topics and 2 p.m. the day of the meeting for agenda topics.
■ The phrase “Remarks to the council must be for topics related to the business of the city of Festus” would be added to the council’s current rules of decorum.
■ The definition of disorderly conduct would be amended to include “using obscene or disruptive gestures; using loud, threatening or abusive language.”
■ A sergeant of arms (the chief of police or his designee) would enforce the rules, rather than the mayor.
■ Visitors would be prohibited from bringing firearms to the meeting regardless of whether they have a concealed carry permit, to be consistent with Missouri law (with firearms already banned and police officers using metal detector “wands” to uncover any potential weapons of those entering meetings for months).
■ The time allotted to each speaker would be reduced from five minutes to three minutes.
■ The “remarks of visitors section” would be capped at one hour. If time were to run out, the period could be extended by a majority vote of the council.
The council members seemed to agree one deadline should exist for residents to register to speak at a meeting, but disagreed on other proposed changes in the rules, particularly reducing the time allotted for residents to speak.
Ward 1 Councilman Dave Boyer said the townships he had contacted have three-minute limits on individual citizen comments.
Ward 3 Councilman Dan Moore responded, “I just don’t think right now is the right time for us to move and prevent more people from having their time to say what they’re going to say at this juncture.”
Ward 4 Councilman Rick Belleville agreed with Moore, saying he thought “some of the wording is a little bit severe” and he worried some of the changes could bring up First Amendment violations. He said he also is concerned about a 60-minute limit on residents’ comments.
“Some people might view it as speech suppression and others might view it as trying to bring up order,” he said.
Brian Malone of Lashly and Baer, the city’s law firm, told the council members in the work session that he would bring a revised draft of the amended rules of decorum to the council’s next meeting.
When the council’s regular meeting began and progressed to the remarks of the visitors’ section, many of the speakers complained about the proposed changes to the rules of decorum and criticized city officials for how they have behaved in dealing with residents.
“I really, honestly, think you should seriously consider what you’re trying to put into place by violating the constitutional rights of the people who live here, by limiting them on what they can say and how they can say it,” said Dana Bowers, who said she is from Franklin County and has been fighting against data center projects where she lives. “They can stand up here and drop the f-bomb every two seconds, and there’s nothing you can do about it. It is our constitutional right to say whatever the hell we want to say, however the hell we want to say it, period.”
Mary Fakes, a frequent contributor during the public comments portion of meetings, said the comments she made during early council meetings when the data center project had been made public were respectful. But she said her comments were “met with hostility” when she questioned city officials about information disclosed through Sunshine Law requests.
“We need more leaders who are connected and committed to our residents’ values,” she said.
Another data center opponent, Mary Youmans, asked the mayor if he was trying to stifle her and others who share her concerns.
“Are you hoping to scare us into silence tonight with your changes to the rules, or are these long meetings just getting too much for you?” she asked.
Judith Ivery called Mayor Sam Richards’ interactions with residents into question.
“If you want respect, you have to earn it,” she said.
Richards, when contacted Tuesday morning, said he had no comment in regard to the previous night’s meeting.
When asked what kind of vote by the council would be needed to amend the rules of decorum resolution, he said it takes a simple majority.