Rules that require advance notice to the public body before recording a meeting violate the OMA. Here, a public body prohibited a citizen from recording its meeting because the citizen failed to provide advance notice that he would record the meeting. The public body’s rules required advance notice of the recording. The public body’s reason for its rule was so the public body’s clerk could ensure a citizen could get his or her equipment through the security checkpoint and to notify the public body of the recording. A public body may limit the right of the public to record open meetings only pursuant to prescribed rules, and then only to the extent that those rules are designed to prevent disruptions or avoid safety hazards and do not unduly interfere with the right to record. This public body’s rule was not reasonable or necessary to prevent interference with public meetings or protect the safety of those in attendance.

The Tribune sought to gain access to information regarding the identities and addresses of the parents of applicants to the University of Illinois. They submitted a request citing the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, which the University denied. The University cited an exemption allowing them to withhold information prohibited from disclosure by state or federal law as the reason for the denial. The court did not allow the case to proceed, stating that a federal court would not have subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the case was about interpreting the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, a state law of Illinois, the case would need to be heard by an Illinois State Court.

Jared Boyer, IASB Extern

The following case is binding in the jurisdiction of the Illinois Appellate Court Third Circuit. Its content may be of interest to school officials in Illinois. It involves a “quo warranto” action. “Quo warranto” actions used to challenge another's right to public office. For more information on quo warranto actions, see the last paragraph below.

Parker, a candidate for the school board, had two felony convictions and filed his papers to become a candidate for his local school board. The State’s Attorney sought a court order to remove Parker’s name from the ballot and stop him from running for the school board. The basis for the request was that Parker was not eligible to run because his felony convictions disqualified him from holding public office pursuant to section 29-15 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/29-15). The trial court granted the State's quo warranto motion and barred General Parker from placing his name on the ballot. On appeal, the appellate court upheld the order barring General Parker from placing his name on the ballot.

Quo warranto cases are generally only brought by the Attorney General or the appropriate State's Attorney. If neither of them brings the suit, it may be brought by any citizen after s/he has requested the AG and State's Attorney to bring the same, they fail to do so, and the circuit court grants permission for the citizen to file it. After receiving permission to bring the suit, the citizen must post a bond when filing the proceeding because, if s/he is unsuccessful, s/he must pay the defendant’s attorney fees and costs. Depending upon the alleged violation, the law allows the court to impose a $25,000 fine or remove the board member from office.

A copy of this case is available at the following location:

www.state.il.us/court/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2012/3rdDistrict/3110140_R23.pdf

A public body may not meet in a private residence, even when it gives a proper notice and posting of the meeting to the public. Here, a public body called a special meeting due to impending statutory time constraints. The public body knew that its routine meeting location would be closed for a holiday on the special meeting’s date, so it chose a public official’s private residence as the meeting location. The meeting location was not “convenient and open to the public” because a private residence could “reasonably be expected to deter citizens from attending the gathering. Citizens may have felt uncomfortable going to a public official’s home to attend a meeting. In this sense, the private residence was ‘ill-suited’ for a public meeting.”

Names of State University students and graduation information were categorized by the University as “directory information.” Directory information is not exempt from disclosure under Sections 7(1)(a),7(1)(b), or 7(1)(c) of FOIA.