Public Access Opinion 24-013

Notice of a Change in Regular Meeting Dates

Open Meetings Act - OMA
Case: Public Access Opinion 24-013
Date: Friday, October 25, 2024

This binding opinion from the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (PAC) discusses an issue under the Open Meetings Act (OMA) of whether there was a violation by the Village of Marissa (Village) Board of Trustees (Board) of the duty to give notice of a change in regular meeting dates.

Under OMA, it is "the public policy of this State that its citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way." 5 ILCS 120/1. Public notice of all meetings, whether open or closed to the public, shall be given as follows: (a) Every public body shall give public notice of the schedule of regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar or fiscal year and shall state the regular dates, times, and places of such meetings. 5 ILCS 120/2.02. If a change is made in regular meeting dates, at least 10 days' notice of such change shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which such body functions. However, in the case of bodies of local governmental units with a population of less than 500 in which no newspaper is published, such 10 days' notice may be given by posting a notice of such change in at least three prominent places within the governmental unit. Notice of such change shall also be posted at the principal office of the public body or, if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held. Notice of such change shall also be supplied to those news media which have filed an annual request for notice as provided in paragraph (b) of Section 2.02. 5 ILCS 120/2.03.

Here, an individual filed a request for review with the PAC claiming the Village Board failed to comply with the OMA when it voted to move its regular meetings from the third Monday of each month to the third Wednesday of each month. The individual claimed the Village did not publish notice of this change to its regular meeting schedule 10 days prior to taking action on the change, as required by section 2.03.The PAC analyzed the difference between (1) a change in a single regular meeting date that would be subject to the rescheduled or special meeting notice requirements of posting 48 hours in advance and (2) a change to a public body's regular meeting dates which requires 10 days prior notice by publication in a newspaper and posting notice at the principal office of the public body. The PAC determined that the Board did not give at least 10 days' notice of the changed regular meeting dates before the July 17, 2024 meeting. A County Journal news article written about the schedule change does not constitute notice by publication in a newspaper as required by section 2.03 of OMA. The PAC found that the Board violated section 2.03 of OMA, however the PAC acknowledged that no further action is necessary to remedy the violation because the Village Board subsequently published a legal notice of its change to its regular meeting schedule.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law. The complete Public Access Opinion 24-013 can be found here.