Council will be discussing more specific rules for public participation (PDF pp. 31-33) than what’s on the books now.
It includes prohibitions whenever the chair of the meeting feels like it.
3. Public Comment Not Permitted: The City reserves the right to conduct public meetings at which public comment is not received, when the chair of the meeting determines that it is necessary to do so in order to provide for orderly and efficient governance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unless the City is responding to an actual emergency or is otherwise permitted by law to act in such a fashion, as determined by the chair, the City shall not take final action on any item of public business when the sole discussion of such item has been at a meeting where public comment was not permitted.
Regular readers already know that a common interpretation of the new Open Meetings Act provision taking effect in January is this: if it’s a public meeting, the public gets to speak, period; and that a unit of local government may set rules for how public comment is conducted, but not whether it is.
Has the city attorney checked with the Attorney General about this? It doesn’t say in the memo.
I also wonder why the city is suddenly concerned with orderly and efficient meetings.
Ironically, the participation rules are described as promoting the goal to “ensure vigorous public involvement in the City’s legislative process” yet will be discussed Monday in the Committee of the Whole meeting, during which public comment has always been prohibited.
4 comments
Comment by Kerry Mellott on October 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm
It would not be the first time the city got itself in trouble for lack of correct legal opinion. Its common knowledge among most participants and leaders at public meetings, that statutory provision is provided for usually at least 3 minutes of relevant public comment on agenda items at public meetings. Only the few matters of business which qualify for closed session avoid this provision.
Perhaps it would be wise for council and staff to read the following link: https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter/2011/03/righttospeakcomestoillinois
And of course the current trend in law and AG opinion is toward more public participation, not less.
Comment by yinn on October 22, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Thanks for the link, Kerry. In reading it I was prompted to return to the original article that prompted the first “public’s right to comment post.”
http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-changes-to-open-meetings-act.html
The above article listed OMA rules that were/are taking effect in 2011, 2012 and 2013. I mistakenly tagged “public’s right to comment” as effective January 2013 but it actually took effect in 2011.
So, it looks like the City of DeKalb is behind the times. We’ll see if they make up the tardiness with public comment rules of exceptional quality and by that I mostly mean lawful.
Comment by Mac McIntyre on October 23, 2012 at 9:53 am
home rule
Comment by yinn on October 23, 2012 at 10:05 am
I thought I read somewhere that there aren’t any exceptions for home rule, but I might be thinking of something else so I will check when I get a chance.
You must be logged in to post a comment.