Tag Archives: Open Meetings Act

Open Meetings Act, Peoria Public Schools

Attorney General says D150 did not violate OMA

79 Comments

The Illinois Attorney General’s office issued the following ruling in a letter dated November 16, 2010:

Dear President Wolfmeyer:

On February 16 and February 18, 2010, this Office received three Requests for Review alleging a violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (5 ILCS 120/1 et-seq.) by the Peoria School District 150 Board of Education. The Requests for Review raise questions whether the Board violated the requirements of OMA when four members of the Board attended a February 16, 2010 event with media and the District’s new Superintendent that was closed to the public.

On February 26, 2010, this Office sent a further inquiry letter to Board of Education President Deborah Wolfmeyer requesting the minutes and the audio recording of the event. On March 12, 2010, School District attorney David Walvoord responded to our further inquiry letter and supplied us with an audio copy of the meeting and a written explanation regarding the event.

In its written response to our letter, Mr. Walvoord confirmed that four members of the District’s seven-member board, including the President and Vice President, were present at the event. Clearly, therefore, more than a majority of a quorum of the Board was present and gathered at that time.

One requester was told by District Spokesperson Stacey Shangraw that the event was open only to “members of the professional press.”

This Office has reviewed the audio CD supplied to us by the District. The event’s timeline follows:

2:54- Primary speaker invites questions from the media “for us.”

4:07- In response to a question regarding whether deficits came up in the selection process, the primary speaker states, “I don’t think we got into those kinds of specifics,” and goes on to recount that Lathan shared “with us” an anecdote about a deficit she dealt with in her job with the San Diego school system.

6:00- In response to a question whether Lathan has unanimous support of the board, the primary speaker states “she has the full support of the board.”

13:00- At this point, multiple board members amplify previous answers. At least 3 board members appear to speak interactively at this point.

21:00- The primary speaker notes that “we” are paying for her expenses while she’s here.

23:00- A Board member other than primary speaker makes concluding remarks.

In his letter, Mr. Walvoord explains that the press conference did not violate OMA because the only comments made by Board members were in response to press questions and that there was no discussion or dialogue among the Board members present.

For purposes of OMA, a “meeting” is defined as a gathering of at least a majority of a quorum of the members of the public body held for the purpose of discussing public business. 5 ILCS 120/1.02. The phrase “discussing public business” refers to an exchange of views and ideas among public body members on a matter or matters germane to the affairs of their public body. It is not directed at casual remarks, but, in effectuation of section 1 of the Act (5 ILCS 120/1), at discussions that are deliberative in nature. A deliberation in this context is a discussion aimed primarily at reaching a decision on a matter of concern to the public body, regardless of whether the discussion will result in the taking of an action, will set policy or is preliminary to either. See, Guide to the Open Meetings Act, at 20 (Rev. 2004).

In this instance, we conclude that although a majority of a quorum of the Board was present at the February 16, 2010 event, the Board members did not engage in a deliberative discussion of public business, and thus, did not violate the Act. Based on our analysis of the audio recording, the comments made by the individual members in response to questions posed by the members of the media did not constitute a deliberative process aimed at setting policy or that could lead to a final decision by the Board. Accordingly, the gathering was not a “meeting,” for purposes of OMA.

Therefore, we find that further action is not warranted.

We would strongly suggest, however, that gatherings of this nature should be discouraged. Clearly, in these circumstances, the gathering of four members of the Board in a venue closed to the public caused serious questions to be raised as to the propriety of the event. Further, although a gathering may not be planned with the intention of discussing public business at its outset, the gathering is subject to conversion to a statutory “meeting” at any point. Thus, a gathering will becomes [sic] a “meeting,” for purposes of the Act, if the attention of the requisite number of public body members present turns to a deliberative discussion of public business, whether or not there was any intent to conduct a “meeting.” Had this occurred in these circumstances, a violation of the OMA would inevitably have happened.

Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me at (312) 814-5383. This letter shall sever to close this file.

Sincerely,
Cara Smith
Public Access Counselor

By:
Matthew Rogina
Assistant Public Access Counselor

Open Meetings Act, Peoria Public Schools

Attorney General investigating D150 for possible Open Meetings Act violation

13 Comments

This came in the mail to me today from the Attorney General’s office:

February 26, 2010

RE: Open Meetings Act Request for Review — No. 5949

Dear Mr. Summers:

Thank you for submitting your Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to the Open Meetings Act (OMA), 5 ILCS 120 et. seq. Your Request related to an event held by the Peoria School District 150 Board of Education on February 16, 2010.

We have determined that further inquiry into the matter is warranted and have asked the Board to provide additional information to aid in our review. We will be reviewing relevant materials to determine whether the Board is in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Multiple requests for review have been filed with the PAC on this particular matter.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 217-785-7438.

Sincerely,

Cara Smith
Public Access Counselor

Related post: District 150 and the Open Meetings Act.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 and the Open Meetings Act

47 Comments

District 150 may have violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act when they held their erroneously-titled “meet and greet” (it was more like a “talk and walk” or “read it and beat it”) this past Tuesday.

There’s a two-part test in the Open Meetings Act to determine when a gathering of board members becomes a “meeting” for purposes of the Act. First, there has to be a majority of a quorum. In District 150’s case, that would be three board members. Four board members were in attendance at the gathering in question: Debbie Wolfmeyer, Laura Petelle, Linda Butler, and Martha Ross. That constitutes not only a majority of a quorum, but a majority of the seven-member Board of Education. Second, the gathering has to be “held for the purpose of discussing public business.” It’s on this point that opinions vary.

District 150 officials, Billy Dennis of the Peoria Pundit, and many commenters on my blog insist that this gathering was not for the purpose of discussing public business. The superintendent candidate read a statement and the board members took questions from the press, but they didn’t discuss public business with each other — thus, no violation. Billy Dennis’ recent post indicates that the Attorney General’s office may be siding with District 150 on this matter. He quotes an e-mail he received from district spokesperson Stacey Shangraw where she says:

While we did not believe we were in violation of the Open Meetings Act, a few concerns were raised from external parties regarding our compliance of the OMA at our media event where we introduced Dr. Lathan. To ensure that our interpretation of the Act was accurate, I followed up with the Public Access Counselor.

This is the response I received today from Sarah Kaplan, a law clerk at the AG’s Chicago office, who told me she conferred with Lola Dada-Olley, an attorney in the AG’s Chicago office.

“After reviewing the information you provided us, it does not sound like the press conference (or future press conferences of this nature) violated the OMA….”

The key phrase here is: “After reviewing the information you provided us.” Of course, we don’t know what information was provided. Furthermore, we don’t know much about who’s giving the opinion. Lola Dada-Olley has been with the Attorney General’s office a little over a month, having started in January of this year according to LinkedIn. Can’t find anything on Sarah Kaplan the law clerk. However, the Public Access Counselor for Illinois is Cara Smith, and she’s in Springfield, not Chicago.

Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons thinks they did, in fact, violate the Open Meetings Act, according to the Journal Star:

“Violations of this act always involve quirky levels, and this one is no different,” Lyons said in an e-mail response, “. . . the meeting was clearly a public meeting with notification deficits and exclusion problems. The members present were in noncompliance of the act and the (State’s Attorney’s Office) could sanction, charge, or otherwise seek any level of ‘penalty’ or remedy available.” […]

“Even a casual gathering, such as a dinner party or coincidental meeting on the sidewalk, becomes a public meeting if a majority of a quorum of a public body (or a committee, etc. thereof) is present, and discussion occurs regarding business that is before, or is likely to come before, that public body,” Lyons said….

“A public body, no matter how well-intentioned, may not hold a public meeting and define for itself who may and may not attend the meeting. Public means everyone unless they, for cause, have been ejected or barred (disruption, etc.). Posting and distribution of notices for all public meetings are set out in the act and may not be narrowed by the public body.”

Lyons wasn’t relying on information he received from District 150 in writing his opinion, and he apparently thinks what was talked about during the gathering constituted a “discussion” of public business for purposes of the Act.

But whether or not you think they violated the Act, the big question is: Does it matter in this case? After all, the press was there, and nothing was done in secret, so isn’t this much ado about nothing?

And the answer is “yes and no.” If District 150 had built up trust and credibility with the public over a number of years, I’m sure everyone would give them the benefit of the doubt and just say it was an honest mistake. But District 150 hasn’t done that. It wasn’t that long ago that District 150 agreed in closed session to purchase properties on Prospect Road adjacent to Glen Oak Park, and then actually bought the properties, all in clear violation of the Open Meetings Act. They never apologized or admitted any fault. They subsequently approved the purchases in open session, something lawyers call post-action ratification. That did tremendous damage to the public’s trust. Since then, controversial votes based on questionable information (e.g., shortening school days supposedly to improve classroom instruction, closing Woodruff supposedly to save $2.7 million) have further eroded the board’s credibility. So when an apparent violation of the Open Meetings Act occurs now, even if it’s a little thing, it’s a big deal.

The public has every right to suspect that this latest gathering violated the Open Meetings Act, and that the violation was because of either (a) ignorance or (b) wanton disregard. The public wonders, “if they’ll abuse the Act in a little thing like this, what’s to stop them from abusing it in big things when nobody’s looking?”