When the Peoria Park District (PPD) met in executive session to discuss partnering with District 150 on a new location for a school building for the Woodruff attendance area, they violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Only if they were discussing a sale price for land could they make such plans away from the public eye. That’s the gist of the suit being brought against the PPD by neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sarah Partridge.
Alms reports that their attorney recently went before Peoria County Chief Judge John Barra “to see if our original complaint could be amended to capture the new admissions of the PPD deleting the tapes from the March 8, 2006 PPD Executive Board Meeting. Judge Barra moved that our complaint was so amended. In addition, a trial date has been set for 7 December 2006.”
Their attorney is William Shay of Howard & Howard. He says the deletion of the March 8 closed session tape is a separate violation of the OMA; the Act states that the tape must be retained for at least 18 months after the meeting.
There’s not a lot of litigation over OMA violations, Shay said, because there’s not much in it for the complainant. Typically, by the time one of these cases makes it through the courts, it’s a moot point because either the public body has subsequently ratified any questionable actions in open session, or the plans have already been carried out (for instance, in this case, it could be decided after the school district has already broken ground).
If the Park District is found guilty of violating the OMA, Alms and Partridge could be awarded their attorneys fees, but that’s it for damages. As far as what relief they can get from a successful suit, they are asking for three things: (a) declaration that the PPD did, in fact, violate the OMA, (b) admonishment by the judge for said violation, and (c) prohibition of the PPD from having any further discussions with District 150 regarding sharing Glen Oak Park land. Of those, (c) seems to be the least likely outcome, but is a legal remedy under the OMA if a judge would choose to impose it.
Even if Alms and Partridge get the first two outcomes and nothing more, it will still send a strong message to the PPD not to play fast and loose with the Open Meetings Act. Shay would like to see that strong message sent to all public bodies — that we all have a right to hear public business discussed in public.
So a minor mistake (MAYBE) causes D150 to spend how much money that they don’t have to defend themselves? I hope the judge refuses to make D150 pay the attorney fees of the 2 women that brought the suit.
A few results like that and fewer people (and the money hungry attorneys) would be less likely to file stupid lawsuits.
Sorry.. I meant PPD, not D150. Must be because of all the things about D150 recently…
Secret deliberations in violation of the Open Meetings Act are not a “minor mistake.” The lawsuit is justified — and would be justified even if it were District 150 that had violated the OMA. I don’t see this as a frivolous lawsuit. It is not acceptable for a public body to make secret decisions about the use of public land in direct violation of the law. Shall we allow them to secretly give away the whole park? Should they not be held accountable for their actions?
If they violated the law, why wouldn’t the states attorney jump in and prosecute? Why do we need private citizens filing lawsuits?
MDD:
Great question. Why isn’t the states attorney jumping in and prosecuting?
The states attorney’s office is investigating it.
Is it not the “private [voting] citizens” of this county who put “states attorneys” in office? There are a large number of “stupid lawsuits” to be sure, however any and every governing body must be held accountable. This includes Dist 150. There are more than enough complaints about governing bodies in this city, small influential groups making decisions whithout consulting the public. As if Dist 150 does not have enough problems. Dist 150 has been taking a nose-dive since the A. Schock days. If the current leadership does not understand how to fulfill its role in local govt., they had better request a cut in pay.