Deerfield, Ill. (ECWd) –
This article has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of the speakers. It has everything to do with complying with established laws related to public meetings.
During its April 10, 2025, Board of Education Meeting (video here), the school board chairman violated the board’s own policy #2:230 on public comment, and by extension violated the Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/2.06 (g) “Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.”
The board chairman made the decision to force nonresidents to the back of the line for public comment, forced speakers to reveal where they lived, and reduced each speaker’s time to 2 minutes.
Policy 2:230 is the school district’s policy on public comment. The board cannot change to fit its wants from meeting to meeting. It is a policy that must be followed.
Nothing in the board’s policy permits the board to:
- segregate public speakers based on residency status
- give preference to speakers who are residents of the district (See this article from 2013, where the Attorney General found the Vermilion County Board violated the Open Meetings Act for this exact issue)
- reducing speaking time from 3 minutes to 2 minutes, and especially reducing it without a board vote (if paragraph 4 holds muster)
- force speakers to reveal where they live
- prohibited at least one speaker from finishing reading another speaker’s comments, but permitted a speaker to read letters from “residents” not present at the meeting
We suggest any person whose speaking rights were violated at the April 10, 2025, meeting to either file a complaint with the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor, or file a lawsuit in circuit court alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act and the board policy.
4 Comments
Gerald Smith
Posted at 09:29h, 16 AprilI assume this comment will be deleted, but I think it’s disingenuous not to note that the district policy you reference also clearly states that these guidelines regarding public commentary are “subject to reasonable constraints” and that the list of numbered guidelines also clearly highlight that “the Board President’s decision to shorten public comment to conserve time and give the maximum number of individuals and opportunity to speak” is additionally provided.
I feel it’s also worth noting that all commenters, including those who read letters from residents, were all equally subjected to the shortened 2 minute time period and, as far as I could tell as an observer in the meeting, all members of the public seeking an opportunity to speak were given this chance.
John Kraft & Kirk Allen
Posted at 09:51h, 17 AprilEstablished policy does not provide for on-the-spot changes. Anything permitting the “board president” to shorten time violates the intent of the Open Meetings Act’s “right to speak” as can be found in multiple AG opinions on this subject. AG Opinions also point out that segregating people based on place of residence is not permitted – I noticed you left that part out in your comment. I challenge you to define “reasonable constraints” as applied to the right to speak, the First Amendment to the United State Constitution, and the Open Meetings Act.
P D
Posted at 07:29h, 16 AprilLast paragraph: it’s “whose” speaking rights, not “who’s” (the latter being a contraction of “who and “is”).
James Peterson
Posted at 23:25h, 15 AprilIf the Board President is Sari Montgomery she is a known tyrant; she’s tried to pull-off the same “stuff” in the past; sometimes she succeeded, others not. But this is the first time I know that she is getting such negative coverage, so that’s a good thing. Her term is up in 2025 so this is a good thing also.