The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office recently issued two binding opinions addressing compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“OMA”). Both opinions reinforce the need for public bodies to ensure all procedural and substantive requirements of OMA are met.

PAC Opinion 26-004 Improper Discussions During Closed Session

A citizen complaint against the Lebanon City Council regarding the discussion of topics in closed session that are not authorized by any of the exceptions found in the OMA initiated this request for review. The full opinion can be accessed here. The topics at issue involved discussion of renovations of the City Hall and the potential acquisition of property to construct a new City Hall.

The City argued that the discussions were authorized under Section 2(c)(5) of OMA as the discussion pertained to “the purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired.” The PAC reviewed the recordings of the closed sessions for the meetings in question. After reviewing the verbatim recordings, the PAC determined that portions of the discussion were unrelated to property acquisition and were primarily focused on the condition of City Hall and broader financial considerations. The PAC ultimately concluded that the closed session discussions were improper under section 2(c)(5) of OMA. As a result, the PAC directed the municipality to release the portions of the closed session recordings and minutes that directly concern the current City Hall building to the public.

PAC Opinion 26-005 General Subject Matter on Agenda

A citizen submitted a request for review pertaining to the Village of Okawville Board of Trustees. The citizen alleged that the Board violated OMA at a meeting where a vote was held to approve the termination of a police officer. This item was listed on the agenda as “Personnel Issues” under a “Police & Liquor” heading. The full opinion can be accessed here. The citizen alleged that this description was overly broad and insufficient to inform the public of the action being taken, thus creating a potential violation of OMA.

The PAC cited to section 2.02 of OMA, particularly that “[a]ny agenda required under this Section shall set forth the general subject matter of any resolution or ordinance that will be the subject of final action at the meeting.” The PAC acknowledges that OMA does not define “general subject matter,” but provided a thorough analysis of the legislative intent behind the inclusion of that ambiguous language.

The PAC concluded that the agenda description for this particular action item was insufficient to comply with section 2.02(c) of OMA. In support of its finding, the PAC noted that the agenda item did not identify either the category of employee at issue or the type of personnel action to be considered. As a result, a member of the public reading the agenda ahead of the meeting would not have known what the Board was going to consider acting on.

What Does this Mean for Public Bodies?

PAC Opinion 26-004 underscores how narrowly the PAC reviews items that may be permissibly discussed during closed session. It is imperative for public bodies to ensure that all closed session discussions stay on topic and do not veer off into items that may be related, but do not fall within authorized closed session topics. Further, in order to determine whether closed session topics were permissible, the PAC will request and listen to full recordings of closed sessions. It can be incredibly easy to make an off-hand remark during a closed session that was unintended to be heard by the public.

PAC Opinion 26-005 provides insight as to the expansive view taken by the PAC as it relates to section 2.02. Public bodies must carefully review all agenda items to ensure they are sufficiently descriptive to inform the public of proposed actions to be taken.

About the Author

Megan M. Olson focuses her practice on serving cities, villages, townships, library districts, road districts, park districts, and other local government entities. In addition to providing general counsel, she provides guidance on establishing and drafting new ordinances and policies, contract negotiations, building and code enforcement, administrative proceedings, Freedom of Information Act compliance, and intergovernmental agreements. Megan also has experience in eminent domain, land use, development, and public water supply matters. Click here to read Megan’s full attorney bio.