Public Body Violated OMA for Restricting Public Comment at Meeting
A member of the public submitted a request for review to the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor's office (PAC) alleging that the Village of Sauk Village Board of Trustees (Board) violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) section 2.06(g) of OMA (5 ILCS 120/) during a public meeting by interrupting her public comment.
Section 2.06(g) of OMA provides that "[a]ny person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body." This provision "generally precludes a public body from imposing restrictions on public comment that are not set out in its established and recorded rules." Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 23-013, issued September 13, 2023, at 3. Section 2.06(g) of OMA guarantees "an opportunity to address public officials" which implies the right to state the names of public officials so it is clear to whom the comments are directed and does not permit a public body to enforce public comment rules that impose unconstitutional restrictions on speech during public meetings. The PAC cited to a case in its opinion involving a school district which stood for the general rule that if a prohibition on the use of names of public officials and employees is intended to shield public officials from criticism, then those restrictions on such type of criticism during open meetings is deemed unconstitutional.” An open meeting of a public body typically constitutes a designated public forum where the first amendment to the United States Constitution ordinarily permits only "'reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on public participation" which are content-neutral and "serve a significant government interest[.]" Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14-009, at 4.
Here, the member of the public alleged that the Mayor interrupted her during public comment so that she could not state the names of Board trustees, turned off the audio system, and asked the Police Chief to remove her from the meeting. The Board’s response to the PAC cited two sections of the Village’s Municipal Code that dealt with failing to yield the floor after time has expired and another section that referred to Robert’s Rules of Order relevant to decorum at public meetings.
The PAC noted that in general a public body would not necessarily violate section 2.06(g) of OMA by interrupting or stopping comments that are inflammatory that cause a disruption because the content is profane or insulting. However, the PAC distinguished the situation by the fact that the Mayor instigated a conflict with the member of the public by objecting to her use of the names of the trustees and stating that her time was expired even though her three minutes provided for under the Board’s public comment rules had not expired. The PAC found it unclear how section 2.06(g) could be satisfied by an established and recorded rule that prohibits speakers from stating the names of the members of the public body that they address. Section 2.06(g) of OMA does not permit a public body to enforce public comment rules that impose unconstitutional restrictions on speech during public meetings. The PAC concluded that the member of the public did not disrupt the order and decorum of the meeting and the Board violated section 2.06(g) of OMA.
A copy of the decision can be found here.
Note: To contrast this PAC opinion, a court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Court) (not covering Illinois and not binding on Illinois schools) upheld a school board's policy prohibiting public comments that target, criticize, or attack individual students, as long as it was applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. In that case, the Board interrupted the speaker only when they violated the specific policy. The Court held that the Board’s meeting was a limited public forum and its policy was a reasonable restriction on speech.
A copy of the decision can be found here.