Over the last few weeks, the Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office (PAC) issued two binding decisions addressing issues arising from the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA). In Public Access Opinion 25-009, the PAC concluded that a village board violated the OMA by failing to provide an adequate public recital prior to voting on an appointment to fill a board vacancy. In Public Access Opinion 25-011, the PAC concluded that a county board violated the OMA when it held an improper private meeting.
Each of these decisions is discussed in further detail below.
Public Access Opinion 25-009
At issue was whether the Village of Sauk Village Board of Trustees violated Section 2(e) of the OMA when it voted to appoint an individual to fill a vacancy on the board. Section 2(e) of the OMA provides that no final action may be taken at a closed meeting, in addition to stipulating that final action must be preceded by “a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted.”
According to allegations in the request for review, the name of the individual that the mayor intended to appoint was not included in the motion, which the board then brought up for a vote. In response, the board argued that it did not take “final action” at the meeting, since the board voted against approving a motion to fill the vacancy, thus contending that “final action” occurs under the OMA only when a public body approves an action.
The PAC disagreed and held that regardless of the outcome, the board decided to bring an issue to a resolution, which constituted a final action under the OMA. Further, the PAC held that whether an action was approved or denied does not preclude a finding that the board took final action, which would implicate Section 3(e) of the OMA. According to the PAC, while the Board did not make a final decision on who would fill the vacancy, the vote nonetheless constituted a final action such that adequate public recital was required under the OMA.
On this issue, the PAC found that the public recital that preceded the Board’s vote lacked information that would sufficiently inform the public of the specific business being conducted because it did not name the individual being considered for the vacancy. Therefore, the PAC concluded that the Board violated Section 3(e) of the OMA.
This opinion aligns with previous PAC determinations, which concluded that naming individuals in a motion for significant action is necessary under the OMA. This decision also serves as an important reminder as to the specificity of public recitals, which must adequately describe the nature of the matter being considered and appropriately inform the public of the business being conducted.
Public Access Opinion 25-011
The second OMA-related decision considered whether members of the Washington County Board held a meeting which violated the requirements of the OMA. In the request for review, a community member alleged that board members attended a meeting hosted by a private company, Pattern Energy, without first posting an agenda or preparing minutes. In response, the board conceded that a majority of a quorum of the Board attended the meeting; however, the board asserted that its members did not meet for the purpose of discussing public business such that the meeting would be subject to the OMA. Instead, the board asserted, the meeting was held for Pattern Energy to hold a discussion on a proposed energy project.
In reaching its decision, the PAC considered that the mere presence of a quorum of a public body’s members at a gathering does not necessarily implicate a meeting subject to the requirements of the OMA. Here, however, the PAC emphasized that the board members engaged in a question-and-answer session with Pattern Energy representatives, such that discussion occurred. Moreover, the PAC held, the impact of Pattern Energy’s energy project constituted a matter of public business as it would influence the county’s tax revenues, energy resources, economy, and environment. Further, the PAC commented that the board members did not participate in their private capacities, but rather with the stated intention of learning more about the energy project. Therefore, the PAC concluded that a majority of a quorum of Board members gathered and exchanged information in anticipation of possible future action related to the energy project. As such, the gathering constituted a meeting subject to the requirements of the OMA. Because the Board did not provide notice or follow any other applicable procedures under the Act, the Board violated the OMA.
