Recent Court Decisions

The public body violated Section 2(a) of OMA at its September 26, 2016 meeting by improperly relying upon Section 2(c)(1) to engage in a closed session discussion of an across-the-board pay raise for non-union employees. Section 2(c)(1) permits public bodies to close a portion of a meeting to discuss “the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body,” but it does not permit a public body to discuss in closed session budgetary matters concerning broad categories of employees. The PAC ordered the public body to make publicly available the portion of the closed session verbatim recording of its September 26, 2016 meeting related to an across-the-board pay raise for non-union employees.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

Rules that require advance notice to the public body before recording a meeting may violate OMA. Here, a public school district prohibited an individual from recording its September 20, 2016 board meeting because the individual only provided notice of his request to record 10 minutes before the meeting began, and the school district’s practice was to require 24-hours’ advance notice. In addition, this particular meeting took place in a school learning resource center, where students were present, and the school district asserted that 10 minutes’ advance notice did not allow sufficient time to arrange for the individual to record the meeting from a location that would prevent student images from appearing in it. Citing to PAC Opinion No. 12-010 (June 5, 2012), the PAC affirmed that any rule requiring advance notice of recording a meeting has a steep burden to overcome in order to demonstrate it is reasonable. Here, the PAC found that the school district had not met its burden of demonstrating that advance notice of recording was reasonable. The PAC further found that if the locations of board meetings raised student privacy concerns then the school district is obligated to select a location for meetings where the right to record is not curtailed or to otherwise eliminate the concern (such as by prohibiting students from accessing the learning resource center during meetings).

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

A public body violated Section 2.02(c) of OMA by voting to amend and approve a settlement agreement without including the general subject matter of the final action on the meeting agenda. The public body’s attorney was present at the meeting and specifically advised the public body that it could not take final action because the matter was not on the agenda, but the public body moved ahead with final action. The PAC ordered the public body to remedy this violation by reconsidering its final action on the settlement agreement at a properly noticed meeting with a proper agenda.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

During a public meeting, the board voted to approve two items listed on its agenda as “X. Board Approval of Lease Rates” and “XI. Board Approval of Revised Covenants.” A member of the public then asked the board to describe what it had just voted on, and the board declined to. Plaintiffs then filed suit, alleging the board violated Section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act by failing to make a sufficient public recital of items X and XI prior to voting on them. Section 2(e) of OMA specifically requires that final action “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.” The appellate court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a claim for an OMA violation and that their case would not be dismissed because “although we are unsure precisely what standard of specificity is required of a public recital, we can say with confidence that the Board’s actions in this case were insufficient.” The court reasoned that while “a detailed explanation about the significance or impact of the proposed final action” is not necessary, a public body must provide enough details to inform the public of the nature of the matter being considered.

A student and her parents sued the district for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of school bullying. Plaintiffs claimed the district breached a contract with the student by failing to enforce its anti-bullying policies as stated in the school handbook and athletic handbook. Plaintiffs further claimed the district’s actions were willful and wanton because the district allegedly acted with utter indifference and reckless disregard to the bullying conduct.

With regard to the breach of contract claims, the circuit court granted the district’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the creation and distribution of student handbooks did not establish the elements of contract formation even though the handbooks stated they “form contracts between the School, its students and their parents.” The appellate court affirmed, noting that the student handbook did not include any specific promise to prevent or eliminate bullying, or to take any particular action in any specific circumstance.

With regard to the willful and wanton conduct claim, the circuit court dismissed this claim on tort immunity grounds. The appellate court agreed, finding that Section 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act shielded the district from liability because how the district implemented and applied its anti-bullying policies were discretionary acts, not ministerial tasks, as the policies did not mandate a specific response to every set of circumstances. Moreover, it found that such policy determinations involve teachers and school administrators balancing various interests (including student safety interests), which meets the Illinois Supreme Court’s definition of policy decisions that fall within the tort immunity context.