5 ILCS 120/2(a)
OMAOpenness required
Openness required (the basic open-meetings mandate, subject to the Sec. 2(c) exceptions)
Read the full statute text on /statutes →
Jump to the 11 issues decided under this provision, with a drafting brief ↓
0 upheld (no violation found) · 0 rejected (violation found) · 1 partial violation, out of 1 documents.
Not legal advice, and not a per-exemption ruling — this reflects each document's overall disposition. See the FAQ disclaimer.
How the Public Access Counselor has treated 5 ILCS 120/2(a)
Section 2(a) sets the basic open-meetings mandate under the Open Meetings Act. It requires the business of public bodies to be conducted openly, with closed session permitted only as allowed by the specific exceptions in Section 2(c). A public body that wants to meet privately must therefore stay within an authorized exception and follow the required process for doing so.
In the decision reviewed, the Public Access Counselor applied that mandate to a complaint about a Village of Lisbon Board of Trustees closed-door meeting. The office concluded there was a partial violation because the Board did not follow the correct legal steps to enter closed session and discussed a matter outside the scope of authorized closed session exceptions. The outcome underscores that both procedure and subject matter are reviewed for compliance.
At a glance: 1 document from 2019(0 binding opinions, 1 determination letter). Most often cited alongside: 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1) (Employee/contractor appointment, discipline, or performance) (1); 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(10) (Placement of individual students in special education) (1); 5 ILCS 120/2(e) (Final action ban in closed session) (1).
Recurring issues
- Whether a public body followed proper procedures for entering closed session. (A village board's closed-session discussion of personnel matters)
- Whether matters discussed in closed session stayed within authorized closed session exceptions. (A village board's closed-session discussion of personnel matters)
- Whether a closed-door meeting complied with the basic requirement that meetings be open. (A village board's closed-session discussion of personnel matters)
Practical points
- Follow the required procedures before entering closed session.
- Keep closed-session discussion within the scope of an authorized exception.
Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.
All 1 document citing 5 ILCS 120/2(a)
Issues decided under 5 ILCS 120/2(a)
Individual questions the Public Access Bureau decided under this provision, with the rule it applied, grouped by outcome. Extracted automatically from the letters; check each source letter.
11 issues across 11 determination letters:7 violation found · 4 no violation.
Counts are per issue, not per letter, and come from automated extraction checked against sampled letters. Determination letters are not binding precedent.
Authorities the Bureau cites most on this issue
- People ex rel. Difanis v. Barr, 83 Ill. 2d 191, 202 (1980) cited 3 times
- Nabhani v. Coglianese, 552 F. Supp. 657, 661 (N.D. Ill. 1982) cited 3 times
- Gosnell v. Hogan, 179 Ill. App. 3d 161, 170 (1989) cited 3 times
- University Professionals of Illinois, Local 4100 of the Illinois Federation of Teachers v. Stukel, 344 Ill. App. 3d 856, 865 (1st Dist. 2003) cited 2 times
- Closed-session discussion of employee pay raises (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 16-013) cited 2 times
- Closed-session discussion of municipal budgetary matters (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 12-011) cited 2 times
- Unannounced pre-meeting gatherings and a blocked board meeting (PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 49828) cited 1 times
- Henry v. Anderson, 356 Ill. App. 3d 952 (4th Dist. 2005) cited 1 times
How to challenge a denial on this issue
AI-generated summary of the decisions listed on this page, with each point linked to the letters it comes from. Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice. Open the letter and check the PDF before relying on any point.
When a challenge is strong
- The public body held a meeting at a location that was not convenient and open to the public. OMA requires meetings to be at a time and place specified in the agenda and at a location convenient and open to the public.Based on: 2019 · A committee's closed-session meeting at an undi…
- A majority of a quorum of the public body gathered and discussed public business without providing notice. Such a gathering is a meeting subject to OMA notice requirements.Based on: 2019 · A committee meeting with a quorum of the villag… · 2017 · An unannounced council gathering to discuss wat…
- The public was effectively excluded from a portion of an open meeting. A public body violates OMA when it restricts the public from attending any part of an open meeting.Based on: 2024 · A planning commission's closed-door discussion …
- The public body held a secret pre-meeting discussion of public business without an applicable exception. All meetings must be open unless a specific exception applies.Based on: 2021 · A board's private discussion of equipment purch…
- The closed session discussion went beyond the scope of the cited OMA exception, such as discussing general duties instead of specific employee performance. Discussing matters not within the exception violates OMA.Based on: 2018 · Closed-session discussion of a bidding process · 2018 · Closed-session discussion of police service con…
When the public body usually wins
- A majority of a quorum gathered but did not deliberate public business, and precautions were taken to prevent such deliberation. A gathering is not a meeting unless members deliberate public business together.Based on: 2024 · A board's transit discussion of public business
- The public body seated members before the meeting but did not begin discussing public business until the public was admitted and the meeting was called to order. Seating members beforehand is permissible absent improper deliberation.Based on: 2022 · A housing authority's locked meeting room and d…
- The meeting was a truly political party meeting, not a meeting of a public body. OMA does not apply to such meetings.Based on: 2015 · A political party precinct committeemen meeting
- The requester lacks sufficient evidence to show a notice or agenda violation. The available information did not show a violation.Based on: 2022 · Website posting of meeting agendas and minutes
Points to put in your letter
- State that the meeting was held at a location that was not convenient and open to the public, and provide details.Based on: 2019 · A committee's closed-session meeting at an undi…
- Explain that a majority of a quorum gathered and discussed public business without the required notice, and describe the gathering.Based on: 2019 · A committee meeting with a quorum of the villag… · 2017 · An unannounced council gathering to discuss wat…
- Assert that the public was excluded from a portion of the open meeting, and specify when and how.Based on: 2024 · A planning commission's closed-door discussion …
- Argue that the closed session discussion exceeded the scope of the cited exception, and list the topics discussed.Based on: 2018 · Closed-session discussion of police service con… · 2018 · Closed-session discussion of a bidding process
- Claim that a secret pre-meeting discussion of public business occurred without an applicable exception, and provide evidence.Based on: 2021 · A board's private discussion of equipment purch…
Common mistakes
- Assuming that any gathering of a majority of a quorum is automatically a meeting, even if no public business was discussed.Based on: 2024 · A board's transit discussion of public business
- Believing that seating members before a meeting is itself a violation, without evidence of improper deliberation.Based on: 2022 · A housing authority's locked meeting room and d…
- Thinking that all closed sessions are improper, rather than focusing on whether the discussion stayed within the scope of the cited exception.Based on: 2018 · Closed-session discussion of a bidding process · 2018 · Closed-session discussion of police service con…
- Failing to gather specific evidence of a notice or agenda violation, leading to an unsupported claim.Based on: 2022 · Website posting of meeting agendas and minutes
- Assuming OMA applies to political party meetings that are not meetings of a public body.Based on: 2015 · A political party precinct committeemen meeting
Facts to gather first
- Whether a majority of a quorum was present and discussed public business.
- The location of the meeting and whether it was accessible to the public.
- Whether the public was excluded from any part of the meeting.
- The topics discussed in closed session and the exceptions cited by the public body.
- Any evidence of pre-meeting discussions, including what was discussed and when.
These determination letters are non-binding, and outcomes depend on specific facts; always verify the full PDF for context.
Drafting brief for an AI assistant
Copy this into your assistant to help draft a request, appeal, or challenge to a denial that turns on this issue. It carries the rules and decisions, not your facts: add those yourself. Machine-readable version: oma-2-a.json.
Violation found (7)
Public excluded from portion of meeting
Rule: A public body violates OMA when it effectively restricts the public from attending a portion of an open meeting.
Violation found A planning commission's closed-door discussion after a public hearing · July 2, 2024
Pre-meeting discussion violated open meeting requirement
Rule: All meetings of public bodies must be open to the public unless a specific exception applies; no exception applied to the Board's secret pre-meeting discussion.
Violation found A board's private discussion of equipment purchases · January 26, 2021
Meeting held at location not convenient and open to public
Rule: A public body must hold meetings at the time and place specified in the agenda and at a location convenient and open to the public.
Violation found A committee's closed-session meeting at an undisclosed location without a recording · March 7, 2019
Committee meeting transformed into unnotified Board meeting
Rule: A gathering of a majority of a quorum of a public body for discussing public business is a meeting subject to OMA notice requirements.
Violation found A committee meeting with a quorum of the village board · December 6, 2019
Unauthorized closed session discussions
Rule: The Committee discussed police department consolidation, which is not within any OMA exception, and other topics beyond the scope of the cited exceptions.
Violation found Closed-session discussion of police service consolidation · April 18, 2018
Closed session discussion outside scope of 2(c)(1) exception
Rule: A public body violates OMA by discussing matters in closed session that do not fall within the scope of the cited exception, such as general duties rather than specific employee performance.
Violation found Closed-session discussion of a bidding process · March 28, 2018
City Council held meeting without OMA compliance
Rule: A gathering of a majority of a quorum of a public body to discuss public business must comply with OMA's notice and other requirements.
Violation found An unannounced council gathering to discuss water business · November 1, 2017
No violation (4)
Non-public meeting during train and shuttle trip
Rule: A gathering of a majority of a quorum is not a meeting unless members deliberate public business together; precautions prevented such deliberation.
No violation A board's transit discussion of public business · May 10, 2024
March 30, 2022 special meeting notice and agenda
Rule: The available information did not show the Board violated OMA notice or agenda requirements for its March 30, 2022 special meeting.
No violation Website posting of meeting agendas and minutes · September 20, 2022
Improper discussion of public business before public admitted
Rule: No violation where the Board did not begin discussing public business until the public entered and the meeting was called to order; seating members beforehand is permissible absent improper deliberation.
No violation A housing authority's locked meeting room and delayed entry · January 18, 2022
Whether partisan precinct committeemen meeting is a public body under OMA
Rule: OMA does not apply to truly political meetings at which party business is discussed, as they are not meetings of a public body.
No violation A political party precinct committeemen meeting · June 29, 2015