Lack of notice of final action in meeting agenda; Attending a meeting remotely
This binding opinion from the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (PAC) discusses two different Open Meetings Act (OMA) issues: 1) whether there was a lack of notice provided in the Village of Princeville (Village) Board of Trustees (Board) March 5, 2024 meeting agenda to authorize the purchase of a truck during that meeting, and 2) whether the Board improperly allowed its Board President to attend four recent Board meetings remotely.
First, OMA requires that Illinois public bodies provide the public with advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body will be discussed or acted on. 5 ILCS 120/1. OMA requires that any agenda set forth the general subject matter of any resolution or ordinance that will be the subject of final action at the meeting. 5 ILCS 120/2.02(c). Here, the March 5, 2024 meeting agenda included an agenda item: “Report from the Superintendent of Public Works.” The meeting minutes show that during the presentation of that agenda item, the Board received information about the availability of a truck for sale at a dealership and then voted on and approved a motion to purchase that truck. The Board acknowledged in its response to the PAC that this action to approve the purchase of the truck was not properly taken in compliance with OMA and was invalid. Therefore, the PAC found that it was undisputed that the Board violated OMA. Next, the Board also provided copies of the agenda and minutes of its April 16, 2024, meeting. The agenda specified that the Board would “consider and vote to Approve Purchase of Used Truck from Yemm Chevrolet, for Public Works Department, for $34,906.00.” The minutes then indicated that the Board re-voted and approved the truck purchase during that April 16, 2024 meeting. The PAC found that the Board remedied its failure to provide sufficient advanced notice in March 2024 by taking these remedial steps in April 2024.
Second, OMA provides that if a quorum of the members of a public body is physically present, then a majority of the public body may allow a member to attend the meeting by other means if the member is prevented from physically attending because of a number of reasons, including what is at issue here, “employment purposes or the business of the public body.” 5 ILCS 120/7(a). Further, OMA specifies that a public body may allow a member to attend a meeting by other means only if a majority of the board adopts rules allowing such means. 5 ILCS 120/7(c). Here, the Board had adopted rules authorizing members to attend remotely “because of conflicting obligations to the Board member’s employer.” The PAC refused to dig deeply into specifics of the location of employment and abilities of the Board President to drive to the meeting, arguing that it cannot read into OMA any limitations on remote attendance that the General Assembly did not express. The PAC found that based on the Board President’s job as a rural carrier postal instructor requiring him to spend his workweek in cities outside Princeville, the Board reasonably could have determined that he was prevented from physically attending the Board’s regular meetings in February and March 2024 because of “employment purposes” within the meaning given in OMA. The out-of-town work assignments also were found to be consistent with the “conflicting obligations to the Board member’s employer” that provide a permissible reason for remote attendance according to the Board’s adopted rules. The PAC concluded that the Board did not violate OMA by allowing the Board President to attend the meetings in question by video conference.
This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.
The complete Public Access Opinion 24-007 can be found here.