O'Fallon City Council did not violate OMA on public comment limits

This reading view follows the source PDF's positioned text blocks. Page headers, repeated office furniture, and lower-margin notes are kept out of the narrative; source notes are available below. Reconstruction is automatic and imperfect — the PDF is the authoritative version, and it's linked on this page.

Dear and Mr. Roach:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 3. 5( b) of the Open Meetings Act OMA) ( 5' ILCS 120/ 3. 5( b) ( West 2018)). For the reasons that follow, the Public Access Bureau has determined that this Request for Review is unfounded.

On May 22, 2020, submitted a Request for Review alleging that the City Council ( Council) of the City of O'Fallon (City) violated OMA during its May 18, 2020, meeting by ( 1) prematurely terminating the time for public comment by and when they wished to cede a portion of their comment period to and ( 2) terminating comments before he had spoken for the full five minutes allowed by Council rules.

Section 2. 06( g) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2. 06( g) ( West 2018)) 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 .office has previously determined that in order to warrant further action, a Request for Review concerning public comment must set forth facts indicating that a member of the public attempted to address public officials during an open meeting but was improperly restricted by the public body from doing so. See, e.g., Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 42017, issued June 1, 2016, at 1- 2 ( determining that a Request for Review alleging that a board's public comment rules violated section 2. 06(g) of OMA did not warrant further inquiry because the Request for Review did not allege that anyone who attempted to address the board during an open meeting was improperly denied an opportunity to speak).

included an interne link to the May 18, 2020, Council meeting. This office has reviewed those portions of the initial comment period where and spoke, as well as those portions of the second comment period where spoke. The video recording establishes that the,Mayor and two other individuals attended the meeting in Council chambers, while other Council members and members of the public attended remotely.' The video shows that during the initial public comment period, addressed the Council for five minutes. 2 After spoke, addressed the Council for almost two minutes and at the end of his; comment said " I am going to yield the rest of my time to 3 began speaking but his remarks were muted and the Council proceeded to the next person to give public comment. Next, addressed the Council for approximately three and a half minutes. At the end of her comments, stated " I am going to end my time. * * * I am going to attempt to give the rest of my time to i4 began speaking but his remarks were muted again and the Council proceeded to the next person to give public comment.

The video establishes that the Council did not interrupt or end or public comment time. Rather and ended their own public comments when they expressed the desire to cede the rest of their time to speak to The plain language of section 2. 06( g) of OMA provides an opportunity for people to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body. A public body may prescribe reasonable rules to govern meeting decorum and procedure, including time limits for public comment. See Wright v. Anthony, 733 F. 2d 575; 576- 77 ( 8th Cir. 1984) ( five minute time limit served a significant governmental interest in conserving time and in ensuring that others had an opportunity to speak). The City' s established and recorded rules for public comment, which are available on its website, provide that "[ a] speaker shall speak no longer than five minutes on any subject[.] i5 The rules do not provide that speakers may donate their time or portions of their time to other speakers. and each were allowed an opportunity to address the Council. had already addressed the Council for five minutes at the time and attempted to yield their time to him.

and chose not to speak for the full five minutes allotted. Accordingly, this office is unable to conclude that or were deprived of an opportunity to address. the Council. Therefore, this office has determined that this allegation is unfounded.

The video also shows that the Council held a second period of public comment toward the end of the meeting during which again addressed the Council. 6 alleges he asked why he was not allowed to speak during the remaining portions of and time and when the Council did not answer, he called for a pointof order and then received a response from the Council. He alleges that that the Council did not provide him a full five minutes to speak because this initial exchange was counted towards his allotted five minutes. Section 2. 06( g) does not mandate that public bodies conduct a question and answer session; rather, a public body must allow an opportunity during open meetings for "any demands an answer to a question, the public body does not infringe on the speaker's statutory right to public comment by responding to the question. See Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 51623, issued May 18, 2018, at 4- 5 ( concluding public body did not violate OMA when it interruptedspeaker to explain it would not answer questions). Based on our review of the recording of the meeting, this office is unable to conclude that was deprived of an opportunity to address the Council. Therefore, this office has determined that this allegation is also unfounded.

This file is closed. Please contact me at '( 312) 814- 5201 or the Chicago address listed on the first page of this letter if you have questions.

Very truly yours, Senior Assistant Attorney Public Access Bureau