The Butler County Commissioners should rethink their recent action limiting input from the public to one comment period, down from two.

To be clear, no serious harm was done by the commissioners’ action earlier this month eliminating the second public comment period, which had been added a few years ago. The public still has an opportunity to speak at commissioners meetings.

Until the recent change, a pre-meeting comment period allowed people to express their opinions on an issue scheduled for discussion or a vote. A general comment period had also been available at the end of meetings.

But that system was used, some might say abused, by a few people who would speak before and after meetings, often making the same comments twice.

Some critics of the commissioners’ move claim it’s an attack on democracy, but that’s more hyperbole than fact. The change does not prevent anyone from speaking at a public meeting. The new policy was intended to limit the time taken by the public meetings, which can drag on well beyond an hour.

Keeping meetings from running overly long is a worthy goal and was the stated reason for two commissioners’ supporting the change. But a short meeting time is not the primary purpose of a public meeting — it’s to let the public observe county officials conducting county business and to let the public address elected officials with their views and concerns.

Critics of the commissioners went overboard when they suggested the loss of one of the two comment periods was akin to “declaring war on public participation,” as one person claimed. There is no evidence that anyone wanting to speak at a public meeting will be denied that right.

Part of the problem seems to be the apparent abuse by a few regular meeting attendees — and consistent critics of one or more of the commissioners — who speak at both comment sessions, often repeating their message.

Likewise, the commissioners themselves deserve some of the blame for meetings running longer than necessary. The ongoing bickering between the commissioners contributes to the length of the meetings, as does the often unnecessary and sometimes rambling responses heard from the commissioners’ table following most public speakers’ comments.

Some statements made during the public comment period might deserve explanation or a statement from a commissioner, but not every one.

Having comment periods before and after meetings benefited the public. A compromise solution might be to restore the second comment period, but require that people choose to speak at one or the other comment period, but not both.

Beyond that, elected officials, and commissioner James Eckstein in particular, should limit responses to statements made during public comment periods.

As some critics of the policy change said, democracy is sometimes messy. People attending meetings to make statements should exercise restraint — and the commissioners should do their part to keep meetings from running longer than necessary.