Residents speak out against proposed ordinance for public demonstrations in Oregon

OREGON — Requiring permits for public demonstrations was met with opposition Tuesday night when several people spoke out about the proposed ordinance, calling it “sweeping control over public expression” and a violation of First Amendment rights.

“I’m speaking tonight in opposition to Ordinance 2025-011 – the proposed permit requirement for public demonstrations,” Veronica Mathews said during the public comment period at the May 13 City Council meeting. “We are not Chicago. We are not Aurora. We’re not even Naperville or Elgin. We are Oregon, Illinois, a peaceful, rural community that has never needed this kind of sweeping control over public expression.”

City Manager Darin DeHaan introduced the ordinance last month, telling city commissioners the new ordinance would give the city necessary information and time to prepare for demonstrations.

The introduction of the ordinance follows three “Hands Off” rallies held on two sidewalks surrounding the historic Ogle County Courthouse on April 5, April 19 and May 1.

Those events, organized by Indivisible of Ogle County, the local chapter of the Indivisible Project network – a grassroots organization founded in 2016 – included signs opposing President Donald Trump’s policies and executive orders during his first 100 days in office.

Those rallies drew 400, 250 and 150 attendees, respectively. The Oregon rally was one of several May 1 rallies that drew hundreds of thousands across the world and in the U.S.

Before the first rally, Jan Buttron of Chana met with officials from the Ogle County Sheriff’s Office, the Oregon Police Department, the Oregon Fire Protection District and the city of Oregon to make sure safety guidelines were followed.

DeHaan told the council in April that he believed a permit process was needed because Oregon was a small community with limited resources and a demonstration permit would allow the city to prepare by having the necessary law enforcement and ambulance services available.

He said the Indivisible organizers and demonstrators were “great to work with” and that he fully supported the First Amendment and citizens’ rights to assemble but was concerned that future demonstrations could create safety issues if more people attended.

Buttron, one of five people who spoke out against the ordinance, questioned the timing of its introduction.

“The timing could not be worse,” Buttron said. “We are in a constitutional crisis.”

She said President Trump had deported American citizens and other individuals without due process – some to prisons in other countries – and committed other unconstitutional acts.

“These are all red flags,” Buttron said, referring to policies by the Trump administration. “These are peaceful protests. History is going to judge which side Oregon is on. This ordinance is not necessary. Hands off our free speech.”

Mathews said the three protests in Oregon were “lawful, respectful and incident-free ... without a single arrest, injury or disruption.”

“Organizers worked directly with the mayor, the police chief, the fire department and the county sheriff. We even requested a crosswalk sign to make sure elderly and disabled attendees could reach restrooms safely. That’s not chaos – that’s cooperation," she said.

Mathews said the proposed ordinance introduces “vague permitting standards” and puts one official, the city manager, in “unchecked control,” creating “red tape for peaceful citizens exercising constitutional rights.”

“While we may trust the current city manager to be fair with this law, what about the next one? Or the one after that?” Mathews said. “A sidewalk rally or candlelight vigil could now require a permit and be denied for something as subjective as ‘insufficient parking’ or ‘staff availability.’

“And while this may seem like a local decision, it isn’t. Oregon is the county seat. The decisions made here set a precedent for all of Ogle County.”

“You still have time to pull back, to consult constitutional experts, and to reconsider,” Mathews told the commissioners. “You are being asked to regulate something that isn’t broken.”

DeHaan said the proposed ordinance had yet to be reviewed by the city’s attorney and undergo a legal review.

Commissioners Terry Schuster, Tim Krug and Melannie Cozzi questioned the definition of “spontaneous” gatherings such as candlelight vigils and were concerned they could fall under the new guidelines.

DeHaan said if a large, organized protest was planned it would require a permit.

“We’re just asking for notification of these events,” DeHaan said. “We only have nine police officers. We are a small community with limited resources.”

He said Indivisible of Ogle County had done a “fabulous job” of notifying city and county officials of the planned rallies.

“My concern is more with counterprotests,” he said. “We want to be able to hold the organizers accountable. We don’t want to infringe on anyone’s First Amendment rights.”

Schuster said he believed the city was asking everyone to have “good manners” when expressing their views.

But DeHaan said he was concerned with “polarizing politics” that had changed over the past 20 years.

“I’m just trying to protect those who are protesting,” DeHaan said. “I’m not in any rush if we decide to do this.”

“Times have changed,” said Mayor Ken Williams, who thanked those who spoke during the public comment period. “Democracy works best when we hear from our people.”

The following is a portion of the proposed ordinance being considered by the Oregon City Council.

Public Demonstration

A. The term “public demonstration” means one of the following events:

1. A march, demonstration, parade, procession, motorcade, foot race, marathon, walk-a-thon, bicycle race, bicycle tour, bike-a-thon or other similar organized event consisting of persons, animals or vehicles, or a combination thereof, moving upon the public streets or public rights of way within the city that interferes with the normal flow or regulation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets or rights of way.

2. A meeting, demonstration, picket line, rally or gathering of more than 25 persons for the common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow or regulation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupies any city property in a place held open to the public as an open public forum or public place of assembly.

B. The term “public demonstration” shall not include any of the following:

1. A block party that has received a permit pursuant to the provisions of 10.08 of this code.

2. A “temporary use” subject to approval by the City Council.

3. Funeral processions.

4. Autumn on Parade, Candlelight Walk or other city sponsored events.

5. Students going to and from school classes or participating in educational activities, provided such conduct is under the immediate direction and supervision of the proper school authorities.

6. Official activity of officers or employees of a unit of local government, the state, or the United States of America.

7. Spontaneous events occasioned by news or affairs coming into public knowledge within three days of such public assembly, provided that the organizer thereof gives written notice to the city manager at least 24 hours prior to such parade or public assembly.