University Of Illinois Should Reevaluate It’s Public Comment Policy –

Champaign, Ill. (ECWd) –

The Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) governs meetings of public bodies in Illinois, and the University of Illinois must comply with the Act.

Section 2.06(g) grants the “Right to Speak” at public meetings, subject only to “reasonable” rules adopted and recorded by the public body:

(g) Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.

The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor has many times determined that any such rules adopted by the public body should enhance the public’s right to speak, not further restrict that right. They can adopt reasonable time, place, and manner rules.

For instance, PAC Opinion 14-012, determined requiring a person to sign up more than 48 hours in advance of a meeting violated the OMA (this public body required 5 days advanced notice), and PAC Opinion 14-009 determined requiring a person to state their address prior to speaking violated the OMA. PAC Opinion 23-013 determined that content-based restrictions on public comment may likely violate the First Amendment (this opinion discussed restrictions on commenting on personnel during public comment).

The University of Illinois has similar problems with its public comment policy found in the above opinions, for instance:

• Require a 3-business-day advance notice for “permission” to speak
• the Board will not hear presentations or entertain questions on the following topics: issues under negotiation as part of the University’s collective bargaining process; statements concerning the private activities, lifestyles or beliefs of individuals employed by or associated with the University; grievances of individual students or employees; proposals or bids for contracts; or, litigation involving the University.

There are at least two “requests for review” of the university’s denial of the right to speak, one based on the 3-day advance notice requirement, and one based on the rule prohibiting public comment on litigation involving the university.

We believe both of the above rules to be violations of the OMA, and the university should reevaluate its public comment policy and amend it accordingly.