Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney walks council through Illinois Open Meetings Act and public comment rules
Summary
Corporation counsel reviewed the Illinois Open Meetings Act, clarified when the city must post agendas and broadcast meetings, and advised consistent enforcement of the council's five-minute public comment rule.
Corporation Counsel Mordock told the Springfield City Council Committee of the Whole on April 8 that the Illinois Open Meetings Act governs meetings of the 11-member council and that agendas must be posted at least 48 hours before a meeting.
Mordock said the Open Meetings Act requires public comment but does not require local bodies to broadcast meetings, except for fully remote meetings held under an emergency declaration. "Broadcasting public meetings is not required by the Open Meetings Act," he said. He also said the city can discuss matters not on the posted agenda as long as it does not take final action on them.
The presentation explained that the council has two separate rule sets: the council—ook of procedure (adopted 02/2007; amended 2020) and public comment rules adopted June 21, 2022. Mordock said both documents impose reasonable, content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions and that the council's public comment limits are enforceable. "City council rule 8.1 and 8.2 limit public comment to 5 minutes unless time is granted by the presiding officer," he said.
Mordock advised consistent application of the rules to avoid confusion when different presiding officers apply different practices. He recommended either keeping a strict five-minute limit or formally amending the rules so any additional time would be uniform across speakers.
Aldermen asked about who decides whether to broadcast public comment; Mordock said the mayor currently controls broadcasting as an executive action but added that the council's public comment rules could require broadcasting and that such a change might alter the attorney general's view of who has authority. Council members also asked whether public comment can be limited to agenda items; Mordock said the rules now vest that determination in the presiding officer but that a two-thirds council vote could change that.
The presentation addressed enforcement steps: a presiding officer may gavel a disruptive speaker and the council may vote to remove someone; the mayor also has authority to enforce rules as chief executive. Mordock noted that the city provides alternate channels for input, including written comments to the city clerk and distribution by the council coordinator.
Council members raised related operational items: adding a sign-up checkbox for visual aids and QR codes, clarifying whether speakers may yield their time to another person (Mordock said the city does not presently allow yielding and suggested adding a rule if the council wants a different practice), and improving public notice of accessibility accommodations. Mordock said the clerk's office will receive and vet visual aids and the communications office will include approved images or QR codes in the meeting broadcast.
The council accepted the treasurer's monthly report earlier in the meeting and then heard the presentation; members thanked Mordock for the clarification and discussed whether the council wants to amend its rules on time limits, yielding, and whether public comment must be limited to agenda items.
The city—ouncil did not change rules during the meeting but voted to follow existing rules and to consider rule amendments if members want consistent, council-wide changes.
