Elimination of Waukegan 'soapbox' time unlikely

One alderman recommends turning off TV cameras

WAUKEGAN -- An alderman's proposal to eliminate audience participation from City Council meetings is legal under state statues, but it's unlikely to happen, officials say.

The public has no legal right to speak at regular council meetings, said Waukegan's general counsel, Brian Grach. Waukegan is only required to make meetings open to the public. Audience participation is only required at public hearings.

As it stands now, any member of the audience can sign up and speak for up to 3 minutes at every meeting.

Calling it a "soapbox for activists," 2nd Ward Ald. John Balen proposed the elimination of public comment at a meeting last week after growing frustrated with residents hammering the council about police behavior.

With support from 6th Ward Ald. Larry TenPas, the council referred the proposal to the council's Judiciary Committee for review next month.

Neither Balen nor TenPas is on Figueroa's committee.

Fourth Ward Ald. Tony Figueroa, chairman of that committee, said he does not support the elimination of audience participation. Instead, he would like to tweak the amount of speaking time alloted to residents and aldermen.

"As far as I'm concerned, (audience participation) is an opportunity for people to come to the City Council and vent out their frustrations," Figueroa said.

Figueroa wants to stop taping audience and alderman time, and he would limit aldermen to 6 minutes per alderman.

Waukegan currently records entire meetings and airs them on public-access television. Under Figueroa's plan, cameras would be shut off after all scheduled business has been completed.

There's a feeling on the council that the cameras have been used for grandstanding, Figueroa said.

Controlling public comment is not an infringement of rights, said Larry Frang, executive director of the Illinois Municipal League in Springfield. As long as Waukegan allows the public to speak at forums about zoning and the budget, they are within the law, he said.

Elimination would be unique, however. Almost every governmental body allows public comment at its meetings, Grach said.

The council would need to consider the reason for the elimination, Grach said. If it's because they feel public comment is getting out of hand and unproductive, then it could be a possibility.

But if there are personal reasons for the elimination, it would be frowned upon.

"It would be wrong to not allow (comment) because (residents) take a position contrary to what the council wants to hear," Grach said.