PAC Issues First Binding Opinion of 2026: Village Violated OMA by Restricting Public Comment

Takeaway: The PAC held that a village board violated the Open Meetings Act by improperly interfering with a resident’s public comment, including by prohibiting her from naming trustees and prematurely cutting off her remarks.

The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (“PAC”) issued its first binding opinion of 2026, concluding that a village board violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) when the mayor improperly curtailed a resident’s public comment. PAC Op. 26‑001.

The requester alleged that during her remarks before the village board, she first thanked a trustee for asking a specific question, and identified that person by name, and then congratulated three other trustees for organizing a holiday event, also identifying them by name. The mayor repeatedly interrupted the requester to state that she could not refer to individual trustees by name, and when she continued to do so, the mayor then shut off the audio system and removed the microphone, attempted to end her comments before the three‑minute limit expired, and directed the police chief to remove her from the meeting.

In response, the village argued that its actions were justified, as public comment rules authorized the mayor to enforce decorum and prevent disruptions.

The PAC rejected that position. While acknowledging that public bodies may intervene when a speaker’s “inflammatory comments” unreasonably disrupt a meeting, the PAC found no evidence that the requester’s comments were unreasonably inflammatory or disruptive. Instead, the PAC concluded that any disruption resulted from the mayor’s interference with the speaker’s statutory right to address the village board. It further explained:

• There are no established or recorded rules prohibiting speakers from naming public officials, as required by OMA for any public‑comment limitation.
• Even if such a rule existed, prohibiting speakers from naming officials would be incompatible with Section 2.06(g), which guarantees an opportunity to address public officials directly.
• Such a restriction could also raise First Amendment concerns if applied to suppress criticism of public officials.

Finding that the speaker had not disrupted the meeting, the PAC determined that the village’s actions violated Section 2.06(g) of the OMA, which requires public bodies to provide an opportunity for public comment at their meetings.

While the Village Board’s actions here appear to be extreme, this serves as a reminder that boards should remain mindful of restrictions and generally allow the opportunity for public comment with only reasonable constraints. For any questions related to this opinion or its implications, please contact one of the authors of this post or any Franczek attorney.