On a night when the scheduled 45-minute City Council public comment period stretched on for nearly an-hour-and-15 minutes, Evanston alders last month failed to advance a plan to reform the public comment process.
The set of changes proposed by Ald. Devon Reid (8th) had some peculiarities, outlined in an Evanston Now story.
But there is a need for reform. And it existed long before the outbreak at two recent meetings of rabidly antisemitic comments by an organized group of apparently out-of-town racists.
After listening to public comment sessions at Evanston government meetings for nearly two decades, and digging into what the state’s open meetings act requires, I would suggest a number of changes.
Limit public comment to 30 minutes
The Public Access Counselor in the Illinois Attorney General’s office ruled, in 2011 PAC 12740, that a 30-minute limit on public comment is reasonable. (See: Julie Tappendorf, The PAC Says …, Illinois Municipal Review, September 2014.)
Limit each speaker to two minutes
The same PAC opinion determined that a two-minute limit per speaker was reasonable.
(And the city should let people know that at a normal speaking pace two minutes translates to no more than 300 words.)
Given the time required for people to get to the podium, a two-minute per speaker limit probably means only 14 people could speak in 30 minutes.
A 90-second limit might be better, allowing perhaps 18 speakers in 30 minutes, but I haven’t found any PAC rulings supporting that time limit.
Stop asking people to shorten their comments on the fly
We have decades of experience showing that many Evanstonians are incapable of doing that. And they fail in trying to be the new Mr. Fast Talker.
Require advance registration
The Public Access Counselor has determined that requiring people to sign up for public comment five days in advance is unreasonable.
(And given that the Evanston City Council agenda is generally released only on the Friday afternoon before a Monday night meeting, that makes perfectly good sense.)
But setting a rule that would-be speakers must sign up online by, say, Monday at 5 p.m., would appear to be reasonable.
With a fixed number of speaker slots available and a fixed per-speaker length, people would know whether they would be able to speak and how much time they’d have before the meeting began.
Want to complicate it?
The beauty of the changes to this point is that they don’t require discretion on the part of whoever ends up administering the process. And they don’t risk crossing into the area of content-based restrictions that could lead to court challenges.
If you wanted to refine the process further — but at the cost of requiring more administrative overhead, you might consider the following ideas.
Limit comments to agenda items
This restriction was upheld as not violating the First Amendment in Rana Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Aurora, 630 F. Supp. 912 (N.D. Ill. 2009). It does not appear that the question of whether such a restriction would violate the Open Meetings Act has been directly addressed by the Public Access Counselor.
Give priority to those who did not speak at the last meeting
This would reduce the chance that the same folks would hog the speaking time at every council meeting.
Some things not to do
The attorney general’s office has made it clear that some restrictions are not allowed under the Open Meetings Act.
Do not limit the right to speak to Evanston residents.
The Public Access Counselor, in a binding opinion in 2019 PAC 59187, said that any person has a right to address a public body, regardless of where that person lives.
Don’t require speakers to say where they live
The Public Access Counselor, in a binding opinion in 2014 PAC 29739, says a government body may not require speakers to specify their addresses as a condition for being allowed to speak at public comment.
Whether requiring more general information, like ward or home town, can be required does not appear to have been litigated.
Don’t forget to put all the rules in the council rules
The Public Access Counselor has repeatedly dinged cities and school boards for failing to formally adopt rules about public comment that they then try to enforce during meetings.
Provide a more robust alternative
If the city tightens the rules for public comment, it should also provide enhanced alternatives for people to communicate with elected officials other than standing up at a council or committee meeting. This could be done, in part by:
- Encouraging would-be speakers to submit comments electronically instead for inclusion in the public record of the meeting.
- Posting such comments publicly as they are received so council members have ample time to review the comments before the meeting and so that other members of the public have access to them as well.
I think these changes should be welcomed. I always thought that giving your name and full address before speaking during a Council meeting intimidated people. Providing a name and Ward provides enough context.
When public comment drags on for an hour or more, our council members end up making decisions very late in the night. Remember, Executive Session is held AFTER Council meetings (to discuss important matters including pending litigation, real estate, collective bargaining and personnel).
Perhaps a separate meeting with required Council member attendance would be a better choice. No doubt the current system isn’t working well but the changes proposed would make public commentary perfunctory at best. Being sure Council members hear and really listen to constituents comments is an important part of representative democracy. 300 word comment sessions aren’t really going to do that.
This seems pretty good Mr. Smith. Not allowing someone to speak at two meetings in a row unless there is still an open slot 15 minutes before meeting time is a good idea.
I think the Public Comment segment should be lengthened. The fact that so many citizens want to participate is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even though some of those citizens are crackpots. Free speech is under attack in this country, with unpopular speakers and viewpoints being shouted down and intimidated at universities and public meetings. I say adding rules and limits is exactly the wrong response. Encourage and embrace those who care enough to show up, even if the meetings last longer, even if the same people show up more than once, even if they make you cringe. And thank heaven you live in a country and in a city where you can do this!! Rights are like muscles – if you don’t stretch them and exercise them, they atrophy.
Perhaps there should be a public comments meeting on one night like a Monday, and then City Council meeting on that Wednesday where they can than if they choose use the dialogue and transcripts from Monday’s meeting to inform their Council voting or the members talking points on agendas.
Separate the two meetings to give mindfulness and be present for the tasks at hand and you will reduce the friction of lengthy commentary.
Commentary goes long simply because that’s the one chance to speak to leaders and neighbors. It is what the Public Comment portions were designed for, was to feel heard and seen by Civic leaders on the topics being addressed by the City Council. However, because it cannot just be a free for all or no one hears anyone.
So if there are topics the public wants to discuss that are not on the agenda, then why not create a place on the City’s website for people to register to speak to a specific topic or topics maybe on a specific day held Once a month, with rotating Council attendance or all in attendance whatever works?
Knowing the topics ahead of time and also by having a registration of topics thereby making a Resident feel a semblance of control of an Agenda before the City Council. It naturally and probably after a 1 to 2 times is my guess, take on less of a need to go into it with a protest feel, less of an emotionally charged mindset if someone(s) feels recognized to be able to speak to their civic leaders and the public on a topic they feel passionately about their city addressing.
Maybe a non Council Member moderates the meeting?
Good luck!