Oswego Library Board did not violate OMA by extending public comment time 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

On February 22, 2024, this office received your Request for Review in which you alleged that the Oswego Public Library District Board of Trustees ( Board) violated the requirements of the Open Meetings Act ( OMA) I during its January 24, 2024, meeting. For the reasons discussed below, this office has determined that no further action is warranted in this public officials. Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14- 009, issued September 4, 2014, at 5- 7. This office has previously determined that to warrant further action by this office, 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, for example, 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) ofOMA 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).

This office has reviewed the recording of the public comment portion of the January 24, 2024, meeting. Fifteen members of the public addressed the Board, four members of the public spoke for longer than three minutes, and the Board permitted the period for public comment to last approximately 37 minutes. Three of the members who spoke for longer than three minutes appeared to speak favorably of the Board; 5 one member appeared to oppose the position of the Board.' One of the individuals who spoke favorably of the Board was interrupted and reminded of the three minute limitation.' This office also observed that the Board permitted a member of the public to address it even though that individual had not signed in and the public comment period was already over 30 minutes. That individual' s viewpoint appeared to oppose the position of the Board. 8 You do not allege that anyone was prohibited from addressing the Board for at least three minutes during the January 24, 2024, meeting, rather you allege that the Board The primary purpose of adopting rules governing public comment pursuant to section 2.06(g) of OMA is to accommodate the speaker's statutory right to address the public body, while ensuring that the public body can maintain order and decorum at public meetings." Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14- 012, issued September 30, 2014, at 6. Unlike, for example, a public body cutting off a comment before it reached the time limit listed in its rules, allowing a person to deliver a comment longer than the time limit generally would not violate section 2.06(g) of OMA. Although a public body must abide by its established and recorded rules when restricting public comment, a public body does not violate OMA when it allows comments to be given or read. See III. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 64514, issued September 1, 2020, at 2 concluding that a public body did not violate OMA when it read a public comment that was longer than permitted by the public body's rules). Based on this office's review ofthe recording ofthe January 24, 2024, meeting, there is no indication that the Board selectively permitted certain speakers to exceed the three -minute time period in order to deprive other members of the public of an opportunity to participate in public comment or limit their ability to speak against the Board' s position. Therefore, the Board did not violate OMA by permitting some speakers to address it for longer than three minutes. Because your Request for Review did not allege facts supporting the allegation that the Board violated section 2. 06( g) of OMA, this office will take no further action in this matter.' This file is closed. If you have any questions, please contact me at laura.harter@ilag. gov. Very truly yours,