Public Body Did Not Give Adequate Public Recital under OMA Before Appointment of Candidate
A member of the public submitted a request for review to the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor's office (PAC) alleging that the Village of Sauk Village Board of Trustees (Board) violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by failing to provide an adequate public recital before voting on an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Board.
The PAC limited its opinion in accordance with OMA to reviewing whether the Board violated OMA and, if so, whether there is any necessary action for the Board to take to comply with the directive of this opinion. 5 ILCS 120/3.5(e). Section 1 of OMA states that "it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly” and "that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business." 5 ILCS 120/1. Section 2(e) of OMA provides that, "[n]o final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall 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 requirements of section 2(e) of OMA apply to all final actions taken by a public body. The Act does not define "final action." The PAC found through its analysis that decisions which bring matters to a resolution, regardless of the outcome of the vote, constitute final actions that must be made transparently because the public has a right to know how public officials conducted themselves.
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that "under section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act, a public recital must take place at the open meeting before the matter is voted upon; the recital must announce the nature of the matter under consideration, with sufficient detail to identify the particular transaction or issue, but need not provide an explanation of its terms or its significance." Bd. of Educ. of Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 186 v. Att'y Gen. of Illinois, 77 N.E.3d 625, 636 (2017). In that case, the Court concluded that the school board's public recital was sufficient because the Board president recited the general nature of the matter under consideration (a separation agreement and release) as well as specific detail sufficient to identify the particular transaction (the separation agreement was between the Board and the named Superintendent). See id. at 638.
In this case, the PAC determined that the Board’s vote on the proposed appointee resolved whether or not that individual would fill the vacancy on the Board. While the Board did not choose the new appointee at that meeting, it did decide not to fill the vacancy with the proposed appointee. Because that vote constituted a final action subject to the requirements of section 2(e) of OMA, the PAC determined that it must analyze whether the Board provided an adequate public recital before voting.
The PAC found the public recital that preceded the Board's vote indicated only that the Board would consider whether to appoint an unnamed individual to fill a vacancy on the Board. Although the reference to the appointment of a trustee announced the general nature of the matter under consideration, the public recital lacked information that was essential to inform the public of the particular business being conducted. Because the recital did not name or identify in any manner the individual whose appointment the Board considered, the public could not know whom the mayor proposed to fill the vacancy and whose appointment the Board rejected. The failure by the Board to identify that individual prohibited the public from assessing the mayor's proposed appointee and the Board's decision to reject them.
The PAC concluded that the public recital that preceded the Board's vote indicated only the general nature of the matter under consideration and that the failure to identify the proposed appointee made the public recital inadequate because it deprived the public of a detail that was essential to inform the public of the business being conducted.
The PAC directed the Board to take immediate and appropriate action to remedy its violation of section 2(e) of OMA by amending the approved minutes of the meeting to include the name of the
proposed appointee.
A copy of the decision can be found here.