Open Meetings Act Plaintiffs Respond to

Chicago City Councils Proposed Reforms

Proposed New Rules on Public Comment at Council Meetings to be
Discussed at Council Committee Meeting Tomorrow
By Andy Thayer and Rick Garcia
Co-plaintiffs, Thayer & Garcia v. Chicago City Council, No. 2016CH09212

After insisting for months that it already scrupulously followed Illinois Open Meetings
Act, the Chicago City Council is now scrambling to reform itself.

Or more precisely, being forced to reform, trying only to appear to reform, while in fact
doing very little of substance. As with police reform, education reform, parking
meter reform and much else, Rahm Emanuel and his City Council allies have turned
the word reform, a once noble term, into a swear word.
On Wednesday, June 21 at 9 am in City Hall Room 201A, the City Councils Committee on Committees, Rules
and Ethics will discuss the City Councils proposed rules regarding public comment at its meetings.

Lets be clear about a few things:

1. Were not for our lawsuit, the City Council would have continued its illegal practice of barring public comment,
as it has done so at virtually all of its meetings since the Illinois Open Meetings Act was enacted more than 20
years ago;

2. Only when ordered to by a judge, did the Council get religion about allowing public comment. Now it is
attempting to allow as little of it, and policed as to content, as they think they might get away with;

3. Even though our suit and a judges order are what spurred tomorrows actions, we only found out about the
Citys proposed rules the way most others did: through the press and the City Clerks website. At no time did
the City or its attorneys bother to reach out to us or to our attorneys about whether their proposed reforms
addressed at least in part our objections, let alone solicit our own suggestions for improvements; and,

4. We have communicated to the City Council through their attorneys that their proposed rule changes are still in
violation of Illinois Open Meetings Act and are unacceptable to us. If the City passes them, they wont be
stopping litigation, theyll only be inviting more of it. Council members should ask themselves if its better to
waste more taxpayer money on lawyers, or do the right thing: just follow the law and enact genuine reform.

Here are the several problems with the Councils proposed rules (see R2017-389.pdf at the City Clerks
website):

1. As we and others have previously commented, limiting public comment to 30 minutes total and a maximum of
3 minutes per person means that 10 people would be tasked with representing the voices of 2.7 million people.
Most Chicagoans would probably agree that 50 council members and one mayor already do a poor job of that,
let alone only 10.

The Council currently spends sometimes nearly two-and-half hours of its meetings on purely honorary
resolutions, as it did at its April 19 (00:04:40 to 02:27:51) and May 24 (00:06:15 to 02:35:16) meetings. This is
activity that could be moved to another venue or scaled back so as to make more time for public comment.

2. There are no rules making sure that even those 10 chosen ones are selected in a fair and transparent
manner. This means that the Mayor and his allies could pack the roster with their chosen allies, just as theyve
previously packed the Council chamber seats so as to exclude dissenting voices from the general public. Like
with police reform, theyre saying trust us and well do better. Given their history of demonstrated contempt for
transparency and democracy, only the most foolishly naive would think that this is a real reform.

3. Little commented upon, but perhaps most chillingly, Rules #3, 4 and 6 attempt to illegally, and
unconstitutionally, govern the content of speakers comments. Specifically,

* Rule #3 states that speakers will limit his or her remarks to the subject matter appearing on the agenda of the
meeting. Section 2.06, subsection (g) of the Illinois Open Meetings Act states simply that Any person shall be
permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.
It does not give said officials license to violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution by governing what is said.

In recent weeks weve already seen the deleterious effect of allowing Council members to determine what is, or
is not, appropriate subject matter. At a recent Zoning Committee meeting, for example, Alderman Solis
repeatedly interrupted and talked over a public commenter who attempted to point out how real estate industry
contributions to aldermen were corrupting how city zoning decisions were being made.

* The latter part of Rule #6 allows the chairman to allow reasonable variances from the three-minute time limit
in appropriate, non-discriminatory circumstances.

Just what constitutes reasonable? At the November 1, 2016 meeting, one of the few in the history of the
Council that allowed public comment, the President of the Civic Federation was bumped to the front of the
speakers list, as the chair announced that the Civil Federation President has a long time history and tradition of
being our first witness at our public hearings and I think he is here to support our budget today. (01:56:35) The
Civic Federation President, who admitted that our primary funding comes from mentors that are executives at
some of the major corporations, institutions and service firms i.e., the citys 1% spoke and was
questioned for well over an hour. All other speakers were admonished to keep their remarks to within
3 minutes. Opponents of the budget were shunted to the very end of the speakers list, when only a handful of
aldermen, and certainly not a quorum, remained in the chamber.

* Rule #4 prohibits speakers from using profane language, obscene conduct, or disruptive comments.
Disruptive comments?!? Talking about campaign contributions influencing legislation is apparently considered
disruptive. This amounts to what is known in constitutional law as a hecklers veto, and banning disruptive
comments has been ruled unconstitutional over and over again. Certainly these prohibitions dont apply to
Aldermen who stand on top of their desks and berate their fellow council members at the top of their lungs. Nor
to elected city officials who always confine themselves to speaking only the Kings English.

In summary, the Councils proposed rules amount to an attempt to illegally and unconstitutionally stifle
Chicagoans voices in what purports to be their government.