At tonight’s Peoria Park Board meeting, the settlement terms of the Alms/Partridge lawsuit were approved unanimously. Here’s the text of the joint press release:

JOINT PRESS RELEASE OF PARTIES

Karrie E. Alms, Sara A. Partridge, and the Pleasure Driveway and Park District of Peoria and its Trustees are announcing today the settlement of the lawsuit pending between them.

Mrs. Alms and Ms. Partridge filed suit against the Park District and its Trustees in May, 2006, alleging that the Park District violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act in holding closed meetings on March 8 and 22, 2006, to discuss leasing to District 150 a portion of Glen Oak Park which, along with adjoining private property along Prospect Road, would serve as a site for a new school to replace the existing Glen Oak School.

That lawsuit was subsequently amended to add a count asserting that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act when an audiotape of the March 8 closed session was mistakenly deleted by a Park District employee.

Trial was scheduled in the case for May 17-18, 2007.

During the past few weeks, the parties, with the assistance of Chief Judge Richard Grawey, have met on several occasions to discuss a potential settlement of the case. Both sides have concluded that settlement terms exist which are acceptable to each and which would end the further expenditure of public and personal funds. Additionally, with the Park District’s decision not to move forward with the School District’s request for property, a significant focus of the suit is no longer present.

The terms of settlement offer more than an end to spending public dollars. They provide for improved policies and training at the Park District. They further provide for the Park District to make a partial payment of the attorney’s fees incurred by Mrs. Alms and Ms. Partridge in this suit. The Park District had conceded that the mistaken deletion of the March 8 tape was not proper under the Act and the Open Meetings Act allows for a recovery of attorneys fees by private parties in such circumstances.

The terms of the settlement are the following:

1. All official Peoria Park District Board of Trustee meetings pertaining to the possible location of public school facilities partially or totally on Peoria Park District property shall be held in open session and otherwise in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
2. The Park District will contact the Illinois Attorney General’s office to schedule training in Open Meetings Act compliance; the training will be conducted at times and places as soon as is convenient and in open session.
3. The Park District will amend its official policy manual to reflect appropriate Open Meetings Act compliance procedures.
4. The terms of this settlement agreement do not constitute an admission by the Defendant Peoria Park District or its Trustees that the closed meetings of the Board of Trustees on March 8 and March 22, 2006, were in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The terms of settlement do not constitute a concession by the Plaintiffs that the closed meetings were held in compliance of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
5. The District shall pay to Plaintiffs $27,500, representing partial payment of their attorney fees and expenses.

Both sides are satisfied with the outcome and are pleased the suit is concluded.

File this one under, “You Can’t Fight City Hall.” It’s hard to wage a lawsuit against a public body that has an endless supply of public funds to expend and lots of legal tricks up their sleeve. The Park Board came out smelling like a rose in this settlement and it only cost them $27,500.

The question I have is, why did Alms and Partridge have to do what the state’s attorney should have been doing in the first place? The taxpayers pay the state’s attorney to prosecute cases like this; if he won’t prosecute, then who’s looking out for the taxpayers?

Neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge sued the Peoria Park District last May for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA) when they discussed a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session.

The OMA allows public bodies to meet in closed session only for narrowly-defined exceptions, one of which is the “setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body.” The argument is that since the Park Board was not setting a price for the property, but instead intended only to share the land, it did not fall under any exceptions and deliberations should have been held in public.

Fortunately, closed-session meetings have to be audiotaped, so in cases like this the judge can simply listen to the proceeding and determine whether or not the OMA was violated. Unfortunately, the Park Board secretary erased several closed-session tapes, including one pertinent to the lawsuit. That in itself was a violation of the OMA, and the judge declared it so. However, the board secretary was not prosecuted by the state’s attorney.

But the erased-tapes issue was an add-on to the original lawsuit. The main question is whether the Park District violated the OMA by discussing a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session. That case is still ongoing, but it could be settled out of court tonight.

At tonight’s Park Board meeting, one of the items on their agenda is “Discussion—Possible Approval of Negotiated Settlement re: Alms vs. Peoria Park District litigation.” I thought it was odd that this would be discussed in open session since pending litigation is approved by OMA to be discussed in closed session. According to Alms and Partridge’s attorney, the Park Board will discuss the proposed settlement in executive session, then bring it to the open session for approval, if appropriate. As to what the proposed settlement terms are, no one was willing to comment, of course.

Some may ask, why is this lawsuit still going on? Wasn’t it just an attempt to stop the school in the park plan, which was rejected anyway? Why is this still being pursued? And the answer is, this suit represents something much bigger and more important than just one’s feeling about the school in the park issue. It has to do with open government and the need to hold our elected officials accountable.

The public’s business should be done in public. That’s the basic principle. Now there are some very good reasons why a public body would need to meet out of the public eye for certain things, and Illinois law recognizes that fact. They call them “exceptions.” Exceptions to the rule — exceptions to the basic principle. They are to be defined narrowly and used judiciously. In fact, many lawsuits cause public outcry, especially if it concerns sex crimes. Learn more for sexual offenses and the way to protect your right.

If we let public bodies start stretching those exceptions, pretty soon things that should be done in public will be done behind closed doors, in secret, where no one is looking and no one can be held accountable. That’s not good for citizens and taxpayers. The Guide to the Open Meetings Act states 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.”

I’m disappointed that the state’s attorney chose not to pursue this apparent violation of the OMA by the Park District, and that it took private citizens putting up their own money to fight for open government.

Best wishes to Alms and Partridge in their efforts to get a favorable settlement tonight.