https://illinoisfoia.org/exemptions/5-ilcs-120-2-c-11/ 2024-03-05T00:00:00Z https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-80205/ 2024-03-05T00:00:00Z

A citizen complained that the Winnetka Village Council did not properly review its closed-session meeting minutes to see if they could be made public and pointed out errors in those minutes. The Attorney General's office found that the Council's minutes contained a de minimis error regarding who made a motion to enter closed session, and the Council's legal counsel noted that the Council will consider correcting the minutes at a future meeting. The Public Access Bureau concluded that no further

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-74576/ 2023-08-01T00:00:00Z

A citizen complained that the Village of Winnetka improperly discussed a resolution behind closed doors instead of in a public meeting. The Attorney General's office reviewed and found that the closed session was legally permitted because the Council had reasonable grounds to believe litigation was probable or imminent, and the discussion was confined to litigation matters, not the merits of the resolution. Therefore, the Village did not violate the Open Meetings Act.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/ 2023-07-20T00:00:00Z

A school board member complained that their board improperly held a private meeting to discuss a property tax appeal. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and found that the board was legally allowed to discuss the matter in private because it involved pending litigation. Therefore, no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-73545/ 2023-01-30T00:00:00Z

A local official complained that the Town of Normal Town Council improperly discussed a lawsuit in closed session during its September 9, 2022, special meeting, arguing the pending litigation exception did not apply because the town was not a party. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's office reviewed the Council's written response and legal arguments, and determined that the closed session discussion was permissible under the section 2(c)(11) litigation exception. The Bur

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-68363/ 2022-07-05T00:00:00Z

A citizen filed a request for review with the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau, alleging that the Elmhurst City Council discussed matters in closed session during its November 23, 2020, special meeting that went beyond the scope of the litigation exception it cited. The Attorney General's office determined that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing the merits of a conditional use permit under the guise of probable litigation, rather than limiting discussion to

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-65272/ 2022-04-29T00:00:00Z

A citizen complained that the Oakbrook Terrace City Council improperly discussed the mayor's salary in closed session. The Attorney General's office reviewed the recording and determined that the discussion centered on the mayor and liquor commissioner positions, not on specific employees, and that the mayor is an elected officer, not an employee. The office noted that the council had already corrected a typographical error in the meeting minutes and did not order any further action.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/ 2021-10-25T00:00:00Z

A citizen complained that a school board held a private meeting to discuss an agreement with the city, which the board claimed was allowed because of potential legal action. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the board improperly discussed certain matters in closed session during its April 23, 2019, meeting and failed to make a finding that litigation was probable or imminent. The source document does not state that the board was asked to release the recordings a

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2020-pac-65927/ 2021-03-04T00:00:00Z

The requester, a resident with an ongoing property dispute involving a sewer easement, alleged that a city council improperly discussed the matter in closed session under the exception for probable or imminent litigation. The Public Access Counselor held that the council never made or recorded a finding that litigation was probable or imminent as the exception requires, and that its discussion concerned the underlying dispute rather than litigation strategy. The council was directed to disclose

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-59813/ 2019-09-26T00:00:00Z

A citizen complained that a local committee did not properly announce the legal reason for closing a meeting to the public. The Attorney General's office reviewed a video of the meeting and found that although the chairman stumbled over his words, he clearly stated the meeting was being closed to discuss 'pending litigation.' Therefore, the PAC decided the committee followed the law and closed the case.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52493/ 2018-10-05T00:00:00Z

A citizen complained that the DuPage County Election Commission held an illegal closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office reviewed the recording and found that most of the meeting was legal, but a specific four-minute segment was not related to the legal topics allowed for closed sessions. The Commission has been asked to release that portion of the recording to the public.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52158/ 2018-06-14T00:00:00Z

A school board member complained that their board held a private meeting to discuss appointing members to a negotiations committee. The Attorney General's office reviewed the recording and found that this topic was not allowed to be discussed in private under the Open Meetings Act. This means the board should have held that specific discussion in an open, public meeting.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-49476/ 2018-02-01T00:00:00Z

A citizen complained that a hospital board held an illegal closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office found that while the board properly announced the closed session by citing the correct legal exceptions, it held an unauthorized discussion during that closed session. The discussion concerned potential litigation after a Medicare audit, but the board did not make a finding that litigation was probable or imminent, as required by the Open Meetings Act exception.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-46638/ 2017-10-06T00:00:00Z

A school board held a closed-door meeting to discuss kindergarten programming, claiming it was related to potential litigation. The Attorney General's office found this was a violation because the litigation exception only allows for discussing legal strategy, not the actual merits of the school policy. The Board was asked to release the portions of the meeting minutes that discussed the policy itself.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-47429/ 2017-07-14T00:00:00Z

Parkland College held an 'emergency' meeting without giving the public the required 48 hours' notice. The Attorney General's office found that the situation did not qualify as a true emergency, meaning the college broke the law by not providing proper notice. However, the office also ruled that the topics discussed during the meeting's private session were legally allowed to be discussed behind closed doors.

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2017-pac-46720/ 2017-06-06T00:00:00Z

A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2016-pac-42395/ 2016-09-13T00:00:00Z

The requester challenged a village government's board for closing part of a meeting to discuss "pending/imminent litigation" over a bond sale, after she had publicly stated during the same meeting that her group was not pursuing any lawsuit. The Public Access Counselor held that the board's closed-session minutes never recorded a specific basis for finding litigation probable or imminent as the Open Meetings Act requires, and that the board's stated concern about other, unspecified possible lega

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2013-pac-23545/ 2013-05-28T00:00:00Z

The requester challenged a library board for closing part of a meeting to discuss a payment dispute with an employee benefit plan, arguing no litigation was actually threatened. The Public Access Counselor found the library board had a reasonable basis to believe litigation was probable, since it had received letters from the other party's attorney explicitly threatening suit, and that the closed-session discussion properly stayed within permissible litigation-strategy topics, but held that the

https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2012-pac-20863/ 2012-06-25T00:00:00Z

The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for discussing a proposed landfill ordinance in a closed session under the Open Meetings Act's litigation exception. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee's closed-session discussion went beyond genuine probable-or-imminent litigation, that it failed to publicly state and record its factual basis for finding litigation likely, failed to make a required recording of the closed session, and appears to have reached a final de