EAST PROVIDENCE — In an ongoing civics debate, the School Committee is trying to decide when to allow the public to speak at its meetings and whether committee members should respond to those comments immediately or later. It is a topic that public bodies in many cities and towns are struggling with.

The latest proposal from Supt. Mario Cirillo drew immediate comments of censorship at Tuesday’s committee meeting.

The current policy puts public comments at the end of each meeting. Anyone can go up to the podium and speak but committee members and the superintendent’s staff are barred from immediately answering questions and engaging in a dialogue with the speaker.

This policy has drawn complaints that audience questions aren’t ever answered, or at least not promptly.

Cirillo recommended moving the public comment section to the beginning of board meetings. He also wants speakers to sign up at his office days before the meeting and also state what subject they want to talk about.

But several members of Tuesday’s audience said they were “disappointed” and “disturbed” with the proposed change.

“At the last meeting, I said you should reconsider [this policy], but I didn’t think you would do this,” Silver Spring Elementary School teacher Mary Texeira said. “… I didn’t think you would limit speech.”

“This happens to be a public meeting,” said Roberta Brady, former president of the teachers union. “You are elected by us and I would expect as a voting resident, a taxpaying resident, that I would be free to ask a question and expect an answer from a public official. I think that was maybe [taught] in civics.”

She said comments at the beginning of a meeting would be about topics from previous meetings that may have already been acted on by the committee, so “what I or anyone here says would mean nothing.”

Current teacher union president Valarie Lawson added that committee members have repeatedly said they are advocates “of open government and that’s what public comment is.”

Said Lawson, “Now it seems like you are stifling public comments. … I think this is detrimental to good government to proceed along this way and I urge you to reconsider.”

apina@projo.com