Ancel Glink at the IAPD/IPRA 2026 Conference and more...

Ancel Glink at the IAPD/IPRA 2026 Conference

For all of our park officials and employee readers who will be in attendance at the IAPD/IPRA conference this week, we hope you can stop by one or more of the sessions at which Ancel Glink attorneys will be presenting:

Thursday, 1/29/2026

1 - 2 pm - Session 112 - Real Estate 101, Scott Puma & David Silverman (Ancel Glink)

1 - 2 pm - Session 120 - Can We and Should We Have Video Surveillance in Parks & Facilities?, Megan Mack & Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

1 - 2 pm - Session 126 - From Ballot To Victory: Strategies for Successful Referendums, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer (Ancel Glink), Lauren Raspanti & Paul Henley

Friday, 1/30/2026

8:30 - 9:30 am - Session 110 - Legal/Legislative I, Derke Price (Ancel Glink) & Jason Anselment

3:30 - 4:30 pm - Session 119 - Regulating Controversial Park Activities, Eugene Bolotnikov, Katie Nagy & Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

Saturday, 1/31/2026

10:45 - 11:45 am - Session 115 - Be Prepared for Your First Amendment Audits, Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

10:45 - 11:45 am - Session 118 - Park District Finance - It's Not Intuitive, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink) & Mari-Lynn Peters

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 116 - Understanding Social Media: Facebook? Instagram? X?, Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 131 - Solar and Green Energy Options, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink), Erik Brown & Shawn Ajazi

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 133 - Managing Teen Takeover Events: Strategies, Challenges, and Collaborative Solutions, Derke Price (Ancel Glink) & Chief Steven Schindlbeck

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 129 - Boardmanship Essentials Part I, Scott Puma (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 130 - Boardmanship Essentials Part II, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 122 - You Really Should Read Your Board Policy Manual (And Keep It Updated), Scott Puma & Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 128 - Parks Role in Successful Planning and Economic Development, David Silverman (Ancel Glink), Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink) & Jodi Mariano

Fourth Circuit Denies Injunctive Relief for Public Comment Interruptions

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on public comment at meetings in Platt v. Mansfield. Although the Fourth Circuit does not cover Illinois so this ruling is not binding on Illinois government bodies, the case is interesting because it provides a different perspective from the recent Public Access Counselor ruling (PAC Op. 26-001) that we reported on recently that struck down a public comment policy that prohibited comments that attacked public employees or officials.

The case involved a school board that offered an opportunity for public comment at its school board meetings pursuant to a school board policy. That policy prohibited public comment that targets, criticizes, or attacks individual students at meetings, and stated that these type of concerns must be raised privately to the appropriate school official. A group of individuals attended a school board meeting to express their concerns about a student who had been arrested for threats to another classmate, and claimed they were interrupted or not allowed to speak after the board ended the public comment period because of the content of their speech. They filed a lawsuit against the school board claiming that the school board discriminated against their viewpoint and that the board's public comment policy was unconstitutionally vague in violation of their free speech rights under the First Amendment. The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, and they appealed.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of injunctive relief, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claims to support their request for a preliminary injunction. The Court found that the public comment period of the school board meeting was a "limited public forum" and the school board had the right to establish content-neutral restrictions on the speach presented during that public comment period so long as those restrictions were not discriminatorily applied. The Court determined that the school board only interrupted speakers when they violated the school board's policy that prohibits comments that critized an individual student. The Court rejected the speakers' argument that they were discriminated against, finding that the interruptions during their comments were for violations of a facially constitutional speech policy.

Court Finds City Immune from Lawsuit in Case Involving Missing Person

An Illinois Appellate Court determined that a municipality had immunity from a lawsuit brought by a mother who claimed she suffered emotional distress caused by the municipality's failure to assist her in locating her missing daughter. Specifically, the court held that the city had immunity from liability for "failure to provide adequate police protection or service" under section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act. Bailey v. City of Chicago.

A mother called 911 to report her daughter missing after she went to her daycare center and the child was missing. She also asked the police to issue an Amber Alert. No police met with her at the daycare and no Amber Alert was issued, although her daughter was found about two hours after she was reported missing. The mother filed a lawsuit against the city claiming the city breached a duty of care. After the circuit court dismissed the complaint and denied her request to amend the complaint, she appealed to the Appellate Court, which upheld the circuit court's ruling, finding that her claims were barred by the Tort Immunity Act.

• View comments • Track comments •

PAC Finds OMA Violation for Restriction on Public Comment at Meeting

The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General's Office (PAC) issued its first binding opinion of 2026 finding a public body in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) by limiting a speaker during public comment. PAC Op. 26-001.

An individual filed a request for review with the PAC claiming that a public body violated the OMA when the mayor interrupted her during her public comment before the village board at its meeting. Specifically, she claims the mayor told her she could not say the names of village trustees, turned off the audio system and had the microphone removed, tried to cut her off before her 3 minutes were up, and asked the police chief to remove her from the meeting.

In response, the village board defended its actions, arguing that its public comment rules and Roberts Rules of Order allowed the mayor to enforce rules of decorum to avoid disruptions and maintain order at village meetings.

The PAC acknowledged that a public body could terminate "inflammatory comments" that cause disruption in order to ensure that its meetings can be conducted in an efficient manner. However, the PAC determined that this speaker had not made inflammatory comments and that any disruption to the meeting was created by the mayor improperly interfering with the speaker's right to address the board during public comment. The PAC also noted that the village board's public comment rules did not restrict speakers from naming village officials or employees during public comment, and questioned whether this type of rule would be consistent with the OMA. The PAC also suggested this type of rule could be unconstitutional if it was intended to censor protected critical speech against a public official. Because the speaker did not disrupt the meeting, the PAC determined that the village board's restrictions on her speech violated 2.06(g) of OMA (the provision of OMA that requires public bodies to provide members of the public with an opportunity to address the public body at its meetings).

City's Citizen Flag Pole a Public Forum, Not Government Speech

We previously reported on a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that a city's policy in allowing private groups to place flags on the city's flag pole rendered the speech protected speech under the First Amendment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed a similar challenge relating to a "citizen's flag pole" outside of a city hall in New Hampshire that allowed citizens to apply to the city for permission to fly their flag. In this case, a group wanted to fly a flag that read "Save Women's Sports" on the citizen's flag pole. The city initially allowed the flag, but then revoked its permission after receiving complaints that the flag was transphobic.

The group sued, claiming that the city's revocation of its permission violated its First Amendment free speech rights. The group argued that the city had never denied citizen flag requests prior to revoking their permission, and that the action of the city was content-based viewpoint discrimination in violation of their free speech rights. The city defended its decision by arguing that the flag pole constituted government speech, so the city could control the message on the flag pole.

The district court found the speech to be government speech but on appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the citizen's flag pole program was not government speech based on the U.S. Supreme Court's Shurtleff v. City of Boston decision, and that the city's revocation of the flag permit was viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Scaer v. City of Nashua

Municipal Minute