Recent Court Decisions

A public body improperly voted during closed session to terminate a tenured university faculty member. Taking final action during closed session is prohibited by 5 ILCS 120/2(e).

A public body is required to have one or more FOIA officers designated and acting at all times and to provide notice of the procedures for obtaining records to the public in accordance with the requirements of the Act. A public body did not properly respond to a citizen’s FOIA request. The opinion reiterates: (1) that it is a “fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and provide public records as expediently and efficiently as possible in compliance with this Act" (5 ILCS 140/1), and (2) that the procedures for responding to a FOIA request are clear under 5 ILCS 140/3(d). It states the following: Each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section. Denial shall be in writing as provided in Section 9 of this Act. Failure to comply with a written request, extend the time for response, or deny a request within 5 business days after its receipt shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the requisite periods in this Section but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for such copies. A public body that fails to respond to a request received may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g).

A school board improperly took final action in a closed session and then ratified the improper action several meetings later during open session. During the closed session, six of the seven school board members who were present signed a separation agreement. The PAC found that signing a final separation agreement in closed session constituted a final approval by the board. While the board later took action and ratified the separation agreement in open session, the PAC found that the action taken in open session did not cure the closed session violation. That was because the school board failed to adequately inform the public of the nature of the matter under consideration prior to the vote. The PAC considered the board’s description of the matter under consideration to be vague and general because it called for a “vote to approve the separation agreement with the administrator.” Last, a reference to an administrator’s name, along with a vague reference to a “personnel matter,” violated the board’s duty to provide minutes with a “summary of discussion on all matters proposed, deliberated, or decided, and a record of any votes taken.” In addition, other violations were discussed, e.g., the verbatim recording requirement during closed session was not followed and/or failed during the closed sessions in question.

A public body’s special meeting 26 miles from its regular meeting location was found to violate the OMA requirement that such meetings must be convenient and open to the public. A meeting can be open to the public but still inconvenient if “the public, as a practical matter, would be deterred from attending it.” Here, the meeting was held outside of the district, 26 miles from its regular location, and at 9:00AM on a weekday as opposed to the usual 7:00PM. In addition, the public body did not claim that the meeting could not have been held at a suitable facility in the district. While the public body met other procedural OMA requirements and no action was taken at the meeting, the meeting was still found to violate OMA.

Brennan McLoughlin, IASB Law Clerk

A public body’s motion “to approve the recommendation for dismissal of Employee A due to performance concerns” was insufficient to inform the public of the nature of the business under consideration prior to taking final action. The Public Access Counselor found that failing to identify the employee by name in the motion violated OMA. School boards should consult their attorneys for guidance about how to manage compliance with OMA while balancing an employee’s privacy interests.