On April 1st, Springfield area actor, performing artist and recently appointed Sangamon County Board Member Reggie Guyton stood before the Springfield City Council to voice concerns over the city’s lopsided enforcement of open meeting policy.
“I feel that the work that is being done here [at Council] is being overshadowed by the conduct,” said Guyton. “There’s not consistency in these meetings and that’s a problem: it causes y’all to lose credibility as a whole. I don’t think that’s right for the government that represents our city to be inept.”
Guyton was the first of many on Tuesday night who came in to, at least in part, speak to the issue of how the city comports itself during the citizens’ address portion of public meetings. Many people expressed dismay and frustration at what they considered an attempt to “silence dissent.”
Sangamon County Board Member Reggie Guyton, Springfield City Council, April 1 2025 (photo cred. Stan Anders)
After a series of public controversies hit city council last year, changes began to roll out to the format of the city’s broadcasts: first, after the livestreamed image of the badly injured Trevor Hopkins – whose motorcycle was struck by an intoxicated retiring SPD police sergeant – became widely publicized, a disclaimer appeared ahead of public meeting livestreams warning that city broadcasts are “the intellectual property of the City of Springfield,” which are, “intended for the private use of our audience.”
That disclaimer prompted threats of legal action from citizens, and was eventually scrubbed from the city’s broadcasts by late November — but not before the city briefly experimented with cutting away from views of the podium during public comment, instead showing a closeup of one of the council chamber’s monitors indicating the speaker’s name and remaining speaking time.
Numerous members of the public fumed at both this and the city’s turn towards “AI generated” captioning on its livestreams. They argued that the lack of visible lip movements and body language impeded the ability of people with difficulty hearing to follow city proceedings. The city again acquiesced, eventually switching back to showing the podium with an in-picture inclusion of the speaker’s remaining time relegated to a corner of the screen. However, around this same time, the city began to more stringently enforce the long-neglected time limit on public addresses to the committee, cutting off microphones once the allotted 5 minutes expired. Enforcement, however, remained inconsistent.
In January 2025, after a series of technical upgrades were made to equipment used by the city for broadcasting from in the council chambers, the cameras began switching to a shot positioned above and to the side of the podium whenever public speakers address the chamber. This current state of affairs has once again prompted complaints about accessibility for impaired viewers.
Then, last week, at Committee of the Whole, the city cameras suddenly and completely shut off and microphones were fully muted for an extended period while Springfield resident Caitlyn Weiss addressed the council regarding her being banned for swearing while speaking the previous week; she had attended the previous City Council Meeting to voice her disapproval at Springfield’s handling of the aforementioned motorcycle crash which nearly killed Trevor Hopkins and her younger sister Chelsey.
Later during that same meeting the camera was switched away while Maribel Cruz Hine complained to the council about the treatment of Algerian student activist Mahmoud Khalil and American foreign policy in the Middle-East. The cameras switched repeatedly to avoid showing a QR code which was held beside Maribel’s head, directing viewers to a petition for Khalil’s release, until they finally settled for the remainder of Cruz Hine’s time on a view of the horseshoe.
The city’s corporation council apparently confirmed to that evening’s Committee Chairman Ralph Hanauer that the QR code was allowed, yet, as Springfield journalist Ken Pacha later put it, “They played musical chairs with the cameras.”
On April 1st, Pacha read aloud the city’s policy on public comment bans:
“Persons who have repeatedly refused to abide by the public comment rules or whose actions are severe may be banned from attendance and making public comment for a period of time commensurate with the offense, after a motion by any member and majority vote of the Council.”
“You guys recall any votes to ban these folks? Anybody ask you about a thirty-day measure?” asked Pacha. “That’s pretty interesting because it kind of seems like I read the rules better than some of you do… Last week, quite frankly, was a circus. Having to explain to people what was going on off-camera was embarrassing.”
Alderman Roy Williams, Jr. of Ward 3 confessed that this had been the first mention he heard in 4 years at Council that a motion and majority vote was required for banning people from speaking. “That means I need to do a lot more reading. But I want you guys to also know, a lot of the things you’re upset about aren’t the ten [council members’] doing.”
Alderwoman Jennifer Notariano of Ward 6, having spoken to corporation counsel on the subject of the ban letters the council has distributed in recent months, reaffirmed Williams’s point: “We have never voted to ban anybody… we actually don’t have a say. There is nothing that we can do to prevent those letters from going out. Nothing.”
The cavalier attitude towards the city’s public policy, warned Notariano, put the city in a precarious position.
“I would like to highlight to everyone how dangerous it is that we’re not handling these issues in a deliberative manner, in an even manner,” she said. “We don’t have more than a handful of people making decisions on whose behavior is acceptable and whose is not. The one thing that we have to do as a city is to treat everyone the same. We have to make sure we are not making decisions based on who is saying it. It may not be intentional, but how many of these letters have gone out to men? How many of these letters are addressing foul language and disrupting the gallery, when we have had other folks do that? People have come up here and used foul language with impunity, and we’ve never taken a vote — we’ve hardly ever even called it out.
Jennifer Notariano, Springfield City Council, April 1 2025 (photo cred. Stan Anders)
“What I want to tell the nine of you, is that if we don’t make a change, we’re going to see some bills come in for attorney’s fees, because we will get sued,” she continued, “because I’ve been reading the legislation — people sue over this all the time. And whether we win or we lose, what we’re doing now, we’re well on our way to getting in trouble, because there are certain people who can come up here and say whatever and break whatever rules, and there are certain people who get called out on it and get a letter the next week.”
Corporation Counsel Greg Moredock told the council that if needed he could prepare a presentation on the city’s public rules and the contents of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
Twenty minutes after an extensive back-and-forth between the alderpeople over the city’s public comment rules had concluded, when Maribel Cruz Hine once again took the podium with her wife Michelle Cruz Hine holding up the same QR code as had been presented last week, the cameras once again shifted away from the now typical view of public speakers, obscuring the signage. The moment fellow audience member Breonna Roberts of the Massey Commission directed Michelle to turn the QR code towards the camera, the shot was once again changed to an alternate, deeply zoomed view of Maribel’s face in profile.
The QR code at the center of the controversy, held by Michelle Cruz Hine at Springfield City Council, April 1 2025 (photo cred. Stan Anders)
When Breonna Roberts, who last week had her own microphone abruptly shut off – to the point where the entire stream was muted when she attempted to continue talking by casting her voice towards the alders’ microphones – and then turned back on again while speaking, stepped up to address the council after both of the Cruz Hines, she was furious.
“Whoever is in control of the cameras and the microphones must not have been listening to that really productive conversation,” she said. “As soon as we were done talking about accessibility and respect and how QR codes are allowed, they completely disregarded everything you guys said. They were playing tag with the cameras as soon as they came up here… if it’s not you guys, then they are making you guys look terrible.
“It’s more than frustrating to be treated in this way — to come here, week after week, to address my concerns, to be met with censorship, and your utter disdain for people. You make us feel like you absolutely hate our presence! You want us to feel like you care about the community? Maybe start with making us feel like you actually care about us, instead of just staring at us just so we can feel like you’re listening.”
Commissioner Roberts continued,
“This is beyond disorganization. This is beyond technical malfunction. This is a pattern, a pattern that reeks of abuse of power and arrogant contempt for the people of this city. Our right to speak is protected by the First Amendment. Public attendance at these meetings is protected by the OMA… All I want to say is, I have enough evidence against you guys to create a case. And after today, I promise you I will take action. Because what you’re not going to do is attack me and my friends’ First Amendment rights.”
Comments