Trustees debate special-event rules and whether village green flags are government speech

Village staff and the village attorney led a July 28 Committee of the Whole discussion on proposed changes to the special-event permit rules, raising questions about maximum event duration, eligible applicants and whether gazebo/flag displays should be treated as village (government) speech or an open public forum.

Drew (staff member) told trustees staff had drafted decision points so the board could consider whether the village green should be established as a public forum for free speech or treated as government property where the village controls displays. “If you really wanna establish the village green as a public forum for free speech, then you should be crystal clear about that in the code,” Drew said. He presented a working draft that would limit special-event duration to seven days in most cases and narrow eligible applicants to local residents, property owners, businesses and local sponsoring organizations.

Trustees and residents raised split views on urgency and scope. One trustee said there was no rush but urged the board not to “lose track” of the issue; another suggested the village should preserve the green’s aesthetic character and use a written holiday-display policy for recurring decorations such as seasonal trees. Peter White, an East Sheridan Place resident, asked the board to consider limiting prolonged displays on the gazebo, saying, “For significant durations, I don't think it adds to the aesthetic value of the community.”

The village attorney explained the legal distinction that governs trustee choices: if the village opens its property to private displays, the attorney warned, it cannot selectively prohibit flags or displays without opening the forum to all speech. The attorney said, “Once the gates are open, they're open to everybody,” and added that if the village exercises exclusive control over displays on its property, those displays are government speech and thus not governed by the First Amendment in the same way.

Staff and trustees agreed more work and public input are needed. Drew suggested a work session or Saturday morning workshop to continue the topic; trustees deferred action and asked for a primer on First Amendment guardrails, the difference between displays and gatherings, and whether the gazebo and flagpoles should be treated differently. No ordinance changes or votes were taken; the item will return for further consideration and likely appear again on a future trustee agenda.