Town of Cicero Board of Trustees did not violate OMA by briefly interrupting public comment speaker

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 Ms. Galovich:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 3. 5( e) of the Open Meetings Act OMA) ( 5 ILCS 120/ 3. 5( e) ( West 2024)). For the reasons explained below, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the Town of Cicero Board of Trustees ( Board) did not violate section 2. 06( g) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2. 06( g) ( West 2024)) in connection with its March 24, 2026, meeting.

BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2026, this office received a Request for Review from alleging that the Board violated section 2. 06( g) of OMA on the previous day by ( 1) briefly interrupting his public comment and ( 2) permitting him to be physically removed him from the podium and ejected from the meeting — without a formal vote by the Board or directive by the Mayor — before the expiration of his three minutes for public comment based on the content of his comments rather than any actual disruption of the meeting. The submission included an meetings, so it did not provide an audio recording of the meeting. On May 12, 2026, this office forwarded a copy of that answer to On May 15, 2026, he responded and argued that he was not provided a full three -minutes of public comment, that his presence and speech did not create an actual disruption of the Board meeting, and that his displaying of his middle finger to the Board was simply him counting down the minutes left on his time for public comment.

DETERMINATION

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." A public body violates section 2. 06( g) of OMA when it: ( 1) prohibits a member of the public from addressing its members in a manner inconsistent with its established and recorded rules, or (2) prohibits a member of the public from providing public comment pursuant to its established and recorded rules, but those rules unreasonably restrict that person' s right to address public officials. Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14- 009, issued September 4, 2014, at 5- 7. Pursuant to its established and recorded rules " a public body may legitimately prescribe comments that each lasted for no more than two seconds, possibly causing to briefly pause before he continued speaking. raised two fingers at the 16:45 mark, stating that he had two minutes remaining. At the 17:45 mark, lowered his index finger but continued to extend his middle finger, indicating that he had one minute left.2 He kept his middle finger extended until he was ushered away from the podium at the 18: 12 mark. Despite the Board's assertion that spoke for three minutes, the only recording of the meeting available to this office shows that his public comment time was ended two seconds short of the full three minutes.

Nevertheless, as the Board noted in its response, a public body is not required to permit disruptive and obscene behavior or gestures to continue without limits This office has previously determined that section 2.06(g) of OMA requires public bodies to allow criticism of public officials that is not profane or disruptive, 3 but permits restrictions on public comments that breach decorum even without the use of profanity. Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 46149, issued April 10, 2018, at 5 ( an individual breached decorum during public comment by raising their voice and pointing and gesturing vigorously with their hands, though they did not use profanity or make threats). Additionally, "[ c] ourts have found restrictions on speech in limited public forums[,]" such as meetings of public bodies, " reasonable when they advance goals such as civility, decorum, relevance, and fairness to other public speakers participating in the forum." SEIULocal 73 v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. ofIllinois, 2023 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 88889, at * 23, ( C. D. Ill. May 22, 2023); see also Biggers v. Massingill, 2026 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 265685, at * 22 ( N.D. Tex. May 14, 2026) ("[ P] rohibiting demeaning or insulting comments is a 11 ( S. D. Ohio, Sept. 21, 2000) ( characterizing an individual raising their middle finger at a police officer as " an offensive and insulting gesture"). Even if gesture did not provoke an argument or objection by the Board, the statutory right to address public officials in section 2.06(g) of OMA cannot be reasonably construed to include engaging in such profane and insulting conduct. Although the Board's public comment rules provide that the presiding officer shall maintain order and decorum, neither the Board's rules nor section 2.06(g) of OMA required the Mayor or the Board to issue a formal directive or hold a vote to approve of police ejecting from the meeting. The Board effectively authorized the termination of public comment by not objecting to his removal. Accordingly, the Board did not unreasonably restrict from addressing public officials after he raised his middle finger at the Board.

With respect to allegation that the Mayor unreasonably interfered with his public comment by briefly interrupting him, this office has consistently determined that a temporary interruption that does not preclude a speaker from completing his or her public comment does not constitute an improper restriction on public comment. See, for example, Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Rev. Ltr. 37496, issued December 11, 2015, at 3 ( public body did not violate section 2. 06( g) by briefly interrupting a speaker to ask a question about their statement). The recording submitted to this office showed that the Mayor made two brief comments that may have caused to pause for a second or two, before he continued without interruption until being removed from the meeting. Because those interruptions did not meaningfully interfere with ability to address public officials, the Board did not violate section 2. 06( g) of OMA on that basis, either.