Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge allege that the Peoria Park District violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) when they met in closed session on March 8 and 22 to discuss a land-sharing deal with Peoria School District 150. Judge John Barra ruled Monday that the Park District clearly violated the OMA on one of two counts.
The OMA “is designed to prohibit secret deliberations and action on matters which, due to their potential impact on the public, properly should be discussed in a public forum.” Thus, closed session meetings are only allowed under narrowly-defined exceptions. There are two exceptions regarding property that would allow the park board to go into closed session:
- The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired — 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5)
- The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body — 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(6)
Alms and Partridge contend that the Park District was not purchasing, leasing, acquiring, or setting a price for the sale of publicly-owned property, and thus violated the OMA by going into closed session on March 8 and 22. The easiest way for a judge to determine if the OMA was violated is to listen to a recording of the proceedings of the closed session meeting. The OMA requires public bodies to make an audio or video recording of closed session meetings and keep those recordings for a minimum of 18 months.
However, Park Board secretary Joyce McLemore erased the recording of the March 8, 2006, closed session meeting after only six months. In lieu of that, the judge could only consider the minutes of that meeting and a sworn affidavit from the Park District that contends the Park Board did discuss purchase, sale, or lease of property in compliance with the section 2(c)(5) or (6) exceptions to the OMA.
Thus, Judge Barra ruled on Count 1 — whether the OMA was violated by discussing a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session — that the facts of the case are in dispute, and the parties would have to present further evidence to prove whether or not the OMA was violated. In other words, Alms and Partridge have a valid case and it can proceed to trial.
On Count 2 — whether the OMA was violated by Secretary McLemore’s erasure of the March 8 closed session tape — Judge Barra ruled that the facts in this instance were not in dispute, and that the Park District did indeed violate the OMA. The tape is erased and McLemore admitted to erasing it. A hearing will be held to determine the appropriate remedy for that violation.
All I can say is, thank goodness someone in this town is holding our elected officials accountable.
UPDATE: The Journal Star finally posted their report on their website.
Sometimes I just want to kiss the person who came up with checks and balances.
The timing is fascinating. Front page of the Journal Star the day before a big meeting about the school on the same day a Tiger dies at the Zoo, and just a few days after the bike trail hit a huge roadblock.
The noose is tightening…
and only the lawyers really win anything…
MDD, I think the public won in this case.
Was Bonny Noble appointed PPD emperor for life?
CJ, How has the public won? The public had to pay the attorneys to defend them so although it may seem like some sort of “victory”, you’re paying for it with tax money.
Because the alternative is that the Park District is allowed to continue breaking the law with impunity. I understand what you’re saying, and I don’t dispute that there are frivolous lawsuits that just cost taxpayers money in lawyer fees and result in no public benefit. But in this case, I think this lawsuit is justified and does benefit the public.
Surely you don’t think all lawsuits against elected officials are frivolous, do you?
I am waiting to hear the answer to the question about Bonny Noble. Is she PPD honcho for life? Can we fire her for being a Republican? Democrat? Obnoxious?
It’s my understanding that Bonnie Noble is hired as an employee by the Park Board. According to the Illinois Park District Code (70 ILCS 1205/4‑7):
So, if I’m not mistaken, she’s employed as long as the Park Board wants her and she chooses to stay employed there.
The decision on whether erasing the tape violated the law was easy. The question is, what will be done about. A severe tongue lashing?
An admonition not to do it again? Or will someone really be held accountable? And then, who? Who really ordered the tape erased? Or do you believe that story about it being an accident?
A good topic for a Scott Janz quiz.
Accidents happen, but it’s awfully coincidental.
My sources claim that many tapes were erased. Erasing just one tape would have been too obvious. As to who ordered the tapes erased? Any secretary that erased any executive tape without written approval and signed of by our States Attorney would call for the immediate firing of that employee of our County Board upon authorization to the adminstrator to take such action by the full County Board. But the County Board fortunately is not run like the PPD Country Club.
Are all of you aware that four Park Board Seats are up for election and closing time for filing is gettin near. I people are satisfied with the status quo, so be it. If not get the word out on your blog sites.
“The question is, what will be done about.”
Most states have statutory monetary penalties for violations of FOIA, Open Meeting, or other “sunshine” acts.
(Although I confess I haven’t read the filing so I don’t know what relief was sought.)
“Violation of the Act is a criminal offense, a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1500 and imprisonment for up to 30 days.” (5 ILCS 120/4; 730 ILCS 5/5-8-3, 5-9-1)
Source: “Guide to the Open Meetings Act 5 ILCS 120” by Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, State of Illinois (Revised 8/2004)
“The suit seeks to have any action taken at the two closed meetings nullified as well as a cessation of all dealings with District 150 regarding a new school at the park. The suit also seeks to have the portions of the meeting that do not fall under the Open Meetings Act made public.”
Source: Peoria Journal Star, 12/12/2006
However, erasing the tapes of executive sessions could carry a much stiffer penalty: “Tampering with public records. A person who knowingly and without lawful authority alters, destroys, defaces, removes or conceals any public record commits a Class 4 felony” (720 ILCS 5/32-8). A Class 4 felony is punishable by imprisonment of “not less than 1 year and not more than 3 years” (730 ILCS 5/5-8-7) and “$25,000 or the amount specified in the offense, whichever is greater” (730 ILCS 5/5-9-1).
Source: ILGA website.
For those who are interested, one of my projects when I was a law intern at the Student Press Law Center was creating a FOIA letter generator. You pop in your information and your state, and it pops out a letter referencing the state-specific FOIA laws and penalties and how long the agency has to comply and how much they can charge you and so forth. It’s an awesome tool, and it’s soooooo fast and easy to use — I know tons of lawyers who use it all the time rather than bothering to draft their own every time.
It here: http://www.splc.org/foiletter.asp
The SPLC also had good info on open meetings and so forth.
But this is why I can never remember Illinois’s FOIA and Open Meeting laws — I had to look up the laws for all 50 states and they’re all muddled in my mind.