In the two years since Akron City Council imposed new restrictions on its public comment period, meetings typically last half as long as they used to — a fraction of the number of community members appear to speak at the podium compared to the year leading up to the new regulations.
Despite these reductions, Akron City Council may again deliberate on adding restrictions that would further limit who can speak at council meetings as well as what they can speak about.
This comes amid a federal free speech lawsuit against the city over the restrictions enacted in January of 2024. The lawsuit was filed by Richard Montgomery II, a regular speaker at council meetings prior to the restrictions, who argues it violates the First Amendment and state laws protecting free speech and the state’s open meetings act — city lawyers disagree.
Looking for ways to enshrine greater decorum in meetings
In the rules committee last month, council vice president Jeff Fusco introduced — and later withdrew — legislation to address what he calls rampant “intimidation, bullying,” and “comments that are out of line.” He plans to raise the issue again in 2026.
Fusco’s now-withdrawn legislation sought to add additional restrictions to the public comment period, limiting it to people who live or own businesses or property inside the City of Akron’s borders. He called for people speaking on issues outside of City Council’s purview to be cut off.
Montgomery told Signal Akron that the floated proposals “transform public participation from a constitutional right into a tightly controlled privilege granted at the discretion of government officials.” Fusco told Signal Akron that he wants meetings to be more welcoming to more people in the community and that it would be more productive with greater “decorum,” but he doesn’t know the exact way to enshrine that yet.
“You hear stories from a couple years ago of people coming down, wanting to speak, and hearing some of the comments that were made and thinking, ‘I probably shouldn’t,’” Fusco told Signal Akron. “There’s one case that I do know of, and probably more, where people were followed to their car. They were on the wrong side of the issue for the people that were following.”
Fusco may be referencing the contentious Dec. 16, 2024, City Council meeting when off-duty Akron police officers, at the behest of the Fraternal Order of Police Akron Lodge #7, packed City Council chambers wearing black police union t-shirts to fight back against mounting criticism of Akron Police Officer Davon Fields, who had killed 15-year-old Jazmir Tucker 18 days prior.
Among the group of officers showing support for Fields was Corey Siegfirth, one of the officers who shot Jayland Walker in 2022. Union member Brent Heller signed up for public comment to criticize Tucker for carrying a gun and to lambast calls to fire Fields.
After the meeting, a Signal Akron reporter witnessed a small group of people, who were upset about Tucker’s killing, yell at and follow, from a distance, the group of police union members as they walked in the general direction of the police station. No police report was filed alleging criminal wrongdoing in that instance.
Public comment periods see surge of speakers
Since 2021, Signal Akron found two police reports for incidents at Akron City Hall around the time council meetings were taking place. In November of 2023, Akron police arrested and seized the cell phone of a local activist for putting “Pro-Palestine, Anti-Government, Anti-Police stickers” on public property in front of the building during the meeting.
In December of 2024, a relative of Jazmir Tucker who was “part of a large protest group” outside the building was identified by the APD’s intelligence unit for putting a “Long Live Jazmir” sticker on a police cruiser (criminal charges were not filed).
The public comment period in the year before Fusco’s now-withdrawn legislation was dominated by people most often highlighting Tucker’s killing and criticizing the Akron Police Department, the history of the police officer who killed him and the use-of-force policy review sought by Akron Mayor Shammas Malik.
The key restrictions enacted by City Council two years ago capped the public comment period at 10 speakers per meeting and prevented anyone from speaking at more than one meeting every 30 days. They continued the policy that speakers must register in advance. In the eight Monday night meetings at the end of 2023, prior to City Council members approving the restrictions with an 8-5 vote, an average of 22 community members spoke in meetings that lasted, on average, more than two hours.
The surge of speakers leading to the restrictions began on Oct. 16, 2023, with most people passionately speaking against the Israeli government’s response in Gaza after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks in Israel by Hamas.
Most of the speakers warned of genocide and advocated for City Council to pass a resolution calling for a ceasefire. City Council had seen a surge of people that February and March when council members, at the behest of the police union, removed local attorney Imokhai Okolo from consideration for a seat on the Citizens’ Police Oversight Board.
Fusco plans to introduce new legislation to further restrict public comment
Fusco withdrew his legislation on Dec. 15 but told his council colleagues he “will be working on something for 2026 with regards to, again, the goal of making this a safer place for everyone.”
“We need to be kinder to one another, that we need to be more respectful, we need to be more welcoming and I’m hoping and praying that we’re going to get there,” Fusco said at the Dec. 15 rules committee meeting. “But unfortunately, in this day and age, we’ve lost a lot of that. We need to get back to it, we need to find ways to work with one another better in order to not be so aggressive in terms of some of the folks that come down here.”
Fusco told Signal Akron the legislation he introduced and withdrew was intended to be the beginning of a “conversation” as Akron and other cities throughout the state debate the future of public engagement.
Fusco highlighted House Bill 609, introduced after Canton City Council voted in November to eliminate public comment at its meetings (public comment, with new regulations, was reinstated Jan. 6). The legislation would mandate public comment at local meetings of a “decision-making body.” Fusco also pointed to Akron’s charter, which requires a public comment period at council meetings but allows for “reasonable limits on speaking” and limits comments to issues over which council has authority.
Lawsuit filed after frequent speaker was not allowed to comment
The additional restrictions floated by Fusco come amid the city’s defense of Montgomery’s litigation. The March lawsuit, first filed in state court and then moved to federal court, alleges free speech and public meeting law violations after Montgomery was not allowed to speak at the Jan. 27, 2025, City Council meeting because he had spoken at the meeting two weeks prior.
City of Akron representatives do not comment on open litigation, but its attorneys, in a May motion in federal court seeking to dismiss the complaint, argue that the restrictions are appropriate to “conduct efficient, orderly meetings” and to hear from as many people as possible.
The rules are “content neutral, advance the significant government interest of conducting efficient meetings, and leave open ample alternatives for members of the public to speak.” Therefore, the attorneys claim, the policy doesn’t violate the First Amendment or the state’s public meeting act, which doesn’t guarantee the right to speak.
Since the last filings in May, both sides have been waiting on a response from the magistrate overseeing the case.
In an email, Montgomery criticized the restrictions that led to his lawsuit and the additional restrictions proposed by Fusco in December. He said “democracy depends on friction” and the restrictions weaken “the bond between citizens and their government,” which weakens “the American promise of participatory self-governance.”
“The impact of these restrictions is not theoretical. They disproportionately silence mothers who have lost children to police violence—individuals who often attend meetings repeatedly because their grief, unanswered questions, and demands for reform do not expire after one appearance. For these mothers, public comment is not a political hobby; it is one of the only available avenues to seek recognition, accountability, and change. Limiting their ability to speak based on arbitrary timelines or procedural technicalities compounds their trauma and sends a clear message that sustained civic advocacy is unwelcome.
“Similarly, the restrictions suppress the voices of everyday residents with ongoing concerns about housing, public safety, utilities, environmental conditions, and fiscal decisions. City governance is not static; legislation evolves, budgets change, and new information emerges. Requiring citizens to predict issues days in advance, obtain permission to speak, or wait thirty days after already speaking ignores the dynamic nature of civic life. It deprives residents of the ability to respond in real time to decisions that directly affect their families and neighborhoods.”