CHAMPAIGN — Martel Miller was frustrated on Oct. 25 as he sat in the Champaign City Council chambers.

His son had just been arrested a couple days before, and he — with others mixed in a crowd of about 200 people — wanted to tell the city council that they felt the amount of force police used in the arrest was unjust.

Citizens have brought forward different interpretations about what happened during the arrest. But regardless of their opinions, they wanted a voice that night.

But it was a city council study session, a biweekly meeting to hold less formal discussions on predetermined city issues. Public comment was allowed, but only on topics directly relevant to the items on the agenda.

Miller was told, per city council rules, that he would not get his chance to comment on his son's arrest. The council chambers erupted on that day, but city officials are hoping a recent action helps them avoid similar situations in the future.

"It wasn't even about my comment," Miller told The News-Gazette. "We had 200 people there out of the community."

During that Oct. 25 meeting, crowd members eventually got their chance to comment, but not until after the meeting nearly got out of hand.

And city officials were operating on the fringe of the Open Meetings Act, which requires public bodies to stick closely to the agenda they post before the meeting.

That argument did not hold water for Miller and the other participants.

"The council is there for the people, not there for the meeting," Miller said.

After city council action last week, general public comment at study sessions will become a permanent fixture.

The city council meets every other week for its regular voting session, for which officials invite public comment germane to any of the action items as they vote. At the end of the voting agenda, city officials always provide time for public comment on any city issue.

But in the intervening weeks, council members meet in study sessions for more detailed but less formal discussions on city topics; the Oct. 25 meeting was such a session. They still allow audience participation germane to any of the discussion items, but to this point, they have not provided for more general comments regarding issues not on the agenda.

"We had a set of rules in place at that time, and there was public pressure to deviate from those rules," council member Tom Bruno said. "And it's a dangerous place when we start to fly by the seat of our pants."

Council member Karen Foster said, prior to that Oct. 25 meeting, she had been contacted by a resident wishing to speak during the session. Foster said she explained the council rules to that resident and that there was not likely to be an appropriate time to address the city council.

But then audience members demanded time to comment, anyway.

"To be disregarded that evening really didn't sit well with me at all," Foster said last week.

Council members believe the addition of an agenda item to provide for public participation during study sessions should prevent that problem in the future.

"We like public participation and want to hear from the public," Bruno said. "But we want it to be consistent with our rules."

Audience participation is a basic component to the structure of any meeting of a public body, but different governments have their own rules on how and when residents get to speak.

Urbana city officials, for example, provide audience members with a short form they must fill out if they wish to speak. It requires residents to inform the city clerk prior to the meeting about when and on what topic they wish to speak — general public comment is allowed toward the beginning of the meeting every week, or residents may choose to address an issue as it comes up on the agenda.

The Champaign County Board also requires the public to sign a form with their name and address if they wish to speak. All comments are received at the beginning of the meeting.

The Champaign City Council does not require that residents sign their name to a piece of paper, but they do ask that residents announce their name and address on the microphone before speaking. Some residents have their own feelings about the requirement — many tend to give their business address instead of their residence. Some give a post office box. Miller announces his address as "general delivery."

City council members themselves have their own feelings about the philosophy behind the requirement. City Manager Steve Carter said the practical reason is that the city may want to contact the speaker after the meeting, perhaps to answer a question. In Champaign, council rules typically prevent officials from answering direct questions or engaging speakers in a back-and-forth dialogue during public comment. Urbana is the opposite — direct conversation between council members and speakers is often encouraged.

But in the age of email and cellphones, some council members think the announcement of a speaker's address is more symbolic than practical.

"The meaning of the words conveying the idea that is being expressed is the expression of an elector to the elected," said council member Michael La Due.

Residential addresses are crucial, he said, because of what it means to voters.

"You vote from where you live, and you live where you are empowered to vote for people to represent those interests," La Due said.

But member Deborah Frank Feinen said some people have legitimate reasons not to want to give their address. Maybe they have an order of protection, and communicating their residence in a public forum and on television would put their safety at risk.

Mayor Don Gerard worried that could prevent them from wanting to address the city council at all.

"For me, it does pose a concern to discount people's ability to come and speak to us face to face," Gerard said.

Bruno said it is important to know what part of town speakers hail from, because that ultimately affects their interests.

"When folks come up here and blatantly disregard that, I as a defense mechanism tune them out, because they make a mockery of the process," he said.