The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General’s office (PAC) issued three new binding opinions recently, which we will summarize over the next few days.
In PAC
Op. 25-009, the PAC concluded that a village board violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) becaues it failed to provide an
adequate public recital before the board voted on the appointment of a person to fill a
vacancy on the village board.
The village board defended its actions by arguing that it did
not take final action at the meeting because the board voted against approving
a motion to appoint a person to fill a vacant village trustee position. The PAC
disagreed, finding that decisions that bring matters to a
resolution—regardless of the outcome of the vote—constitute “final action” under the OMA. Here, the board decided not to approve the appointment presented by the village president to fill the vacancy on the village board.
Because the board’s vote on the motion constituted a final action
under Section 2(e) of the OMA, the PAC determined that the board’s vote had to be preceded by a public recital that (1) announced the general nature of
the matter being considered (2) with sufficient detail to inform the public
about the particular transaction or issue. Although the
board did announce the general nature of the matter being considered (motion to
appoint a person to fill a trustee vacancy), the PAC determined that the board
did not provide sufficient detail to inform the public about the matter being voted on because the board did not name or identify the
person whose appointment the board considered prior to taking the vote.
Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink
