Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Free Speech topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livonia residents and council debate free‑speech limits and meeting decorum
Summary
A resident read Michigan’s Open Meetings Act clauses on speech rights; council members responded by stressing decorum rules for orderly meetings and asked the law department to clarify legal boundaries.
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Free Speech topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A Livonia resident read passages from the Michigan Open Meetings Act and the First Amendment at Monday’s council meeting, prompting a wider discussion among council members about what public‑meeting decorum the city may lawfully require. “Speech . . . is constitutionally protected unless it truly interferes with the ability to conduct the council to conduct business,” resident James Biga told the council, citing Michigan statute language and arguing the city may not require a speaker to provide name and address as a condition of speaking. Council members acknowledged the constitutional protection but said the council must also maintain order to conduct business. “We are just trying to conduct official business in an adult manner,” Council Member Donovic said. “When we ask you to sign in, it’s not because anyone’s keeping track of you. We’re just trying to identify residents that may or may not have concerns so that we can maybe get in touch with them.” Vice President Tashnik added a legal caveat about limits on protected speech, noting categories such as obscenity, true threats or incitement are not protected. “The constitution does protect free speech, but it does have limitations,” Tashnik said. He also said he had previously received guidance while running for council about campaigning at official meetings. Council President McCullough asked residents for mutual respect in the meeting room and urged attendees to avoid actions that disrupt the proceedings. Several council members asked the city attorney or law department to provide a memo clarifying the city’s content‑neutral rules for public comment and the circumstances under which staff may limit audience actions that materially disrupt a meeting. The meeting record shows no formal change to the city’s public‑comment rules. The council said it would request written guidance from the law department to clarify legal boundaries for decorum and to reduce future disputes about enforcement.

