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.
The only thing that bothers me is what is a favorable settlement” to these 2 people? In other words, how much money are they going to try and squeeze out of the Park District (us taxpayers).
they pursued this on their time and effort (and perhaps money) on behalf of the public, they deserve a settlement.
Does it bother me that taxpayers have to pay the bill? Yes, it does, but I don’t have an alternative. If part of the settlement could be the resignation of the Park Board, that would be great, but we know that won’t happen.
Wouldn’t the settlement simply address any policy violations and perhaps cover any costs that they incurred in filing and pursuing the lawsuit? I don’t think that any lawsuit under this statute can provide punitive damages for a violation to those bringing suit and if it’s not a remedy available under the law, I sure hope the district doesn’t voluntarily agree to any financial settlement other than court and attorney costs/fees (which is reasonable for them to cover).
We’ll find out tonight if the board accepts the settlement, but I can tell you that these two citizens are not gold-diggers. They’ll want their attorney fees reimbursed, of course, but the more important thing is some assurance that the park board will be more judicious in their use of OMA exceptions.
Under OMA, what remedies are available, and what actions can be taken against the PPD by the courts (anything other than a fine)?
I agree C.J., nothing that Ms. Alms or Patridge have done for the community was about getting money or establishing themselves. I’d be surprised if the settlement contains anything other than a reimbursement (or direct payment) of the actual costs incurred and a promise/policy on how they will handle Open Meetings Act situations in the future.
I have to admit, I initially thought it was all about the school/park issue, but I slowly learned (I’m a slow learner, you know) it is about a larger issue, as CJ pointed out.
Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge stuck their necks out and took a huge monetary risk while the rest of us just sat back and watched. If you think they’re doing this for the money then you haven’t been paying attention. They’re doing this because they love the city they live in.
My hats off to them both.
Let’s see if it is a sealed settlement.