Speaking at an Illinois Public Meeting: Public Comment Under the OMA

Sources checked October 16, 2026.

Illinois’s Open Meetings Act gives any person an opportunity to address public officials at an open meeting, under rules established and recorded by the public body. The right is meaningful, but it operates alongside rules for an orderly meeting. If you plan to speak, check the body’s current written rules, prepare a short comment, and keep a copy of what happened if you believe the body applied a rule that was not in its recorded policy or prevented you from finishing.

What the statute says

Section 2.06(g) of the Open Meetings Act states: “Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.” Read the current text of 5 ILCS 120/2.06, including subsection (g), and check the public body’s posted rules before the meeting.

This provision does not promise unlimited speaking time or require a body to accept every requested format. A public body may adopt rules for public comment, but the PAC’s decisions explain that a recorded rule is not automatically lawful merely because it is written down. Rules must accommodate the statutory opportunity to speak while allowing the body to maintain order and conduct its business. Check the exact rule and the facts of the meeting rather than assuming that any time limit, sign-up requirement, or restriction is valid or invalid.

Before the meeting

Find the meeting notice, agenda, and public-comment policy on the public body’s website. Look for the sign-up process, when it closes, time allowed per speaker or for the comment period as a whole, and any stated limits on subject matter. If the rules are not posted, ask the clerk or other meeting contact for the established and recorded rules. Keep the response.

If you intend to speak, follow the stated process where you can. Bring a written copy of your remarks and note the meeting date, body, agenda item, and the rule you believe applies. You may want to state your name and the subject of your comment as the rules request, while avoiding disclosure of personal information that is not required. If a deadline or condition appears to prevent you from speaking, save a copy of the rule and any sign-up form or correspondence.

At the meeting

Arrive early enough to locate the sign-up sheet or follow the online instructions. Keep your remarks focused and within the time allowed by the recorded rules. Speak so the officials and recording equipment can hear you. If the chair interrupts you, calmly ask which established rule applies and whether you may finish within the allotted time. Note the time, words used, who acted, and whether you were able to continue. If there is a public recording or livestream, preserve its link and the relevant timestamp.

A brief interruption does not automatically establish an OMA violation. In a 2026 determination concerning the Town of Cicero, the PAC found no violation where two brief comments caused a momentary pause and the speaker continued. By contrast, the PAC found a violation in a 2025 Westchester matter after reviewing a recording and concluding that repeated interruptions unreasonably interfered with a speaker. In a 2026 binding opinion involving Sauk Village, the Attorney General found that officials violated section 2.06(g) when the mayor interrupted a speaker for naming trustees, turned off the public-comment audio system, and removed the microphone; the board had no recorded rule prohibiting speakers from naming trustees. These are fact-specific examples, not a formula for predicting another meeting’s outcome.

What the PAC decisions illustrate

The examples below link to the Attorney General’s source documents. Binding Public Access Opinions and nonbinding determination letters have different legal status; the site’s PAC opinions and court precedent explanation describes that distinction.

Unrecorded restrictions: In binding Opinions 26-001 (Sauk Village) and 23-013 (Wheaton Warrenville school district), the Attorney General found violations where officials applied restrictions that were not in the public bodies’ established and recorded rules. Wheaton’s board had stopped a speaker who intended to discuss hiring policies, although its written policy did not exclude that subject. Opinion 26-001 (PDF) · Opinion 23-013 (PDF)
Limits on the total comment period: In binding Opinion 19-002, the Attorney General found that a school board violated the Act when it imposed a 15-minute total cap that was absent from its written rules, which instead set a per-speaker limit. Opinion 19-002 (PDF)
Sign-up deadlines: In a 2026 nonbinding determination involving the University of Illinois Board of Trustees, the PAC found a three-business-day advance request deadline unreasonable as applied to a speaker who requested to comment nearly 48 hours before the meeting, when time remained in the allotted comment period. The PAC recommended revising the rule and allowing later sign-ups when time permits. This determination does not establish that every advance sign-up rule is unlawful. Determination letter 87466 (PDF)
Address and residency requirements: Binding Opinion 14-009 found a violation where a speaker was required to provide her home address before speaking, a condition absent from the recorded rules; the opinion also concluded that such a requirement would not reasonably serve meeting order or other speakers’ opportunity to comment. Binding Opinion 19-009 found a violation when a city council denied a nonresident an opportunity to speak based on residency, where no such rule had been established and recorded, and explained that a residency restriction would conflict with section 2.06(g). Opinion 14-009 (PDF) · Opinion 19-009 (PDF)
Interruptions and the chance to finish: The nonbinding 2025 Westchester determination found unreasonable interference after repeated interruptions. The nonbinding 2026 Cicero determination found no violation where brief remarks did not meaningfully prevent the speaker from completing comments. Westchester determination 85727 (PDF) · Cicero determination 93241 (PDF)

If you believe you were improperly stopped

Write down what happened promptly. Include the meeting date and public body, the point in the agenda, the rule you were told applied, what you said before the interruption, what officials said or did, and whether you were allowed to continue. Keep the policy, sign-up records, emails, and any recording or livestream link. A short, factual chronology and exact quotes are more useful than a general statement that the meeting was unfair.

You can first send a concise written inquiry to the public body asking it to identify the established and recorded rule it applied and to preserve any meeting recording. The site’s meeting conduct and participation topic hub links related PAC materials, and Browse PAC opinions and determination letters lets you search the underlying source documents.

The Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (PAC) handles OMA concerns. The Attorney General’s PAC information and request forms explain how to submit a Request for Review. Under 5 ILCS 120/3.5(a), a PAC Request for Review generally must be filed within 60 days after the alleged violation. The statute has a limited later-discovery rule. Read the current instructions and statutory requirements before filing; the required contents and type of review available depend on the matter. A PAC determination or opinion is not a prediction of what will happen in your situation.

This is general information, not legal advice. Verify the current statute, the public body’s current rules, the original PAC source document, and any filing deadline that applies to your circumstances.