Public Body Violated OMA for Improper Closed Session Discussion of Overdue Loans

A trustee on the Village of Caseyville (Village) Board of Trustees (Board) submitted a Request for Review to the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor’s office (PAC) for an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) for failing to follow the proper procedure for entering closed session and by holding a closed session discussion that was not authorized by any of the exceptions to the general requirement that public bodies conduct public business openly. The trustee alleged that the Village’s mayor called for a closed session at the Board’s January 21, 2026, meeting under the pretext of discussing “personnel issues” but instead discussed outstanding T.I.F. loans.

Section 2a of OMA provides that “[a] public body may hold a meeting closed to the public, or close a portion of a meeting to the public, upon a majority vote of a quorum present, taken at a meeting open to the public for which notice has been given as required by this Act.” Section 2a of OMA further requires that each board member’s vote on holding a meeting in closed session be accompanied with a citation of the specific exception in Section 2 of OMA which authorizes the closed session of the meeting from the public. The votes and citation to the specific exception granted by Section 2 “shall be publicly disclosed at the time of the vote and shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the meeting.”

Section 2(c)(11) of OMA provides that public bodies may hold closed meetings to consider any of the enumerated 39 exceptions listed in the Section that permit public bodies to discuss particular topics in closed session. The exceptions are intended to be strictly construed and extended to the subjects clearly within the scope of the respective exception identified by the board.

Here, the trustee alleged the Board inappropriately entered into closed session during the January 21, 2026 board meeting for “personnel issues.” The Board argued that its closed session discussion of the overdue Tax Increment Financing (TIF) loans were authorized by Section 2(c)(11) of OMA, permitting the closed session to discuss “litigation, when an action against…the public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent…” The recording of the open session portion of the meeting reflected that the Board did not cite a specific exception from section 2(c) as a basis for closing its January 21, 2026, meeting. The Board also did not record and enter into the minutes the exception authorizing it to close a portion of the meeting. The PAC determined the Board violated section 2a of OMA.

The PAC’s review determined that on January 21, 2026, the Board closed a portion of its meeting to the public and failed to find that litigation was probable or imminent or record and enter into the closed session minutes the basis for such a finding, as required by Section 2(c)(11). The closed session discussion concerning the overdue TIF loans did not pertain to pending, probable, or imminent litigation. The PAC determined that the Board violated section 2(a) of OMA by discussing in closed session matters outside the scope of section 2(c)(11) of OMA. The PAC directed the Board to remedy this violation by making the closed session verbatim recording of its January 21, 2026 meeting available to the public.

A copy of the decision can be found here.