5 ILCS 120/2(c)(3)
OMAFilling a public office / removing an office-holder
Filling a public office / removing an office-holder
Read the full statute text on /statutes →
Jump to the 7 issues decided under this provision, with a drafting brief ↓
0 upheld (no violation found) · 2 rejected (violation found), out of 2 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(c)(3)
Section 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(3) allows a public body to meet in closed session to discuss the selection of a person to fill a public office and, in certain circumstances, the removal or status of an office-holder. The decisions describe it as turning on whether the discussion truly concerns filling an office or removal and whether the body has authority over that office.
In these matters, the PAC reviewed closed-session recordings to test the claimed basis. For the City of DeKalb, it concluded discussion of the City Clerk and recording secretary position did not qualify, including because the council lacked authority to remove the elected clerk. For the City of Oakbrook Terrace, where salary discussion was held under a litigation claim, the office examined the recording and, after the city corrected its minutes, said no further remedial action was necessary.
At a glance: 2 documents from 2022(0 binding opinions, 2 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11) (Pending, probable, or imminent litigation) (1).
Recurring issues
- A council discussed the mayor's salary in closed session while citing the litigation exception. (Closed-session discussion of a mayor's salary)
- A council invoked the filling-a-public-office exception to discuss the city clerk and recording secretary position in closed session. (A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position)
- The propriety of a closed session about an elected clerk turned on whether the council had power to remove that clerk. (A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position)
- Correction of meeting minutes was treated as addressing the record of an improper closed-session discussion. (Closed-session discussion of a mayor's salary)
Practical points
- A public body citing section 2(c)(3) should limit closed discussion to filling the office or removal where it has that power.
- A public body should ensure its minutes and recording accurately reflect the closed-session topic and correct them if needed.
- A requester questioning a closed discussion of salaries or clerk matters can point to the recording and minutes as the basis for review.
Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.
All 2 documents citing 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(3)
- Closed-session discussion of a mayor's salaryDetermination letter · Violation found
Violation found
- A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk positionDetermination letter · Violation found
Violation found
Issues decided under 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(3)
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.
7 issues across 3 determination letters:6 violation found · 1 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
- Closed-session discussion of a board member's conduct (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 17-013) cited 1 times
- A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position (PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 68219) cited 1 times
- Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. Attorney General of Illinois, 2015 IL App (4th) 140941, 44 N.E.3d 1245 (2015), aff'd, 2017 IL 120343, 77 N.E.3d 625 (2017) 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 discussed an elected or appointed official's performance or removal, but the body lacked statutory or ordinance authority to remove that official. Section 2(c)(3) only authorizes closed session discussion of performance or removal if the public body has the power to remove the occupant. Without removal authority, the discussion is not covered by the exception.Based on: 2025 · Closed-session discussion of a board vacancy an… · 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t… · 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t…
- The closed session discussion concerned a position that is not a public office, such as a recording secretary. The exception applies to public officers or specific employees; a recording secretary is not a public office, so discussion of performance or appointment is not permitted under this subsection.Based on: 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t…
- The closed session was used to discuss a general policy matter, like an absenteeism ordinance, rather than a specific person's performance or employment. Section 2(c)(3) requires the discussion to be about a specific person; general policy discussions do not fall within the exception.Based on: 2025 · Closed-session discussion of a board vacancy an…
- The body tried to justify closed session discussion by claiming a vacancy, but the legal prerequisites for declaring that vacancy (e.g., disability, abandonment) were not met. The power to declare a vacancy does not authorize removal discussions unless the statutory conditions are satisfied. Without those conditions, the discussion is unauthorized.Based on: 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t… · 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t…
When the public body usually wins
- The closed session discussion was about candidates selected to fill a public office, and any tentative consensus did not amount to final action because the final vote occurred in open session. The selection of a person to fill a public office is covered by the exception, and informal consensus does not constitute final action.Based on: 2026 · Appointment of a park district board commission…
Points to put in your letter
- Argue that the body lacked authority to remove the official, making the closed session discussion of performance or removal improper under Section 2(c)(3) as interpreted in decisions like D1479.1 and D1356.1.Based on: 2025 · Closed-session discussion of a board vacancy an… · 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t…
- If the discussion involved a position like a recording secretary, assert that it is not a public office and the exception does not apply, relying on D1356.2.Based on: 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t…
- Show that the closed session was about a general ordinance or policy, not a specific person, which falls outside the scope of the exception per D1479.1.Based on: 2025 · Closed-session discussion of a board vacancy an…
- If the body claimed to discuss a vacancy, demand proof that all statutory conditions (e.g., doctor's certificate for disability) were fulfilled, citing D1356.4 and D1356.5.Based on: 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t… · 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t…
Common mistakes
- Assuming that any employee or official's performance can be discussed in closed session, even if the body has no removal power.Based on: 2025 · Closed-session discussion of a board vacancy an… · 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t…
- Treating a recording secretary or similar staff position as a public office for purposes of the exception.Based on: 2022 · A city council's closed-session discussion of t…
- Thinking that a general discussion of an absenteeism ordinance is covered by the exception just because it involves an officeholder.Based on: 2025 · Closed-session discussion of a board vacancy an…
- Confusing a public body's tentative consensus in closed session with final action, assuming it automatically violates the Act.Based on: 2026 · Appointment of a park district board commission…
Facts to gather first
- Whether the public body has explicit statutory or ordinance authority to remove the officeholder.
- The legal classification of the position discussed (public office, employee, or other).
- The actual subject of the closed session—whether a specific individual or a general policy matter.
- If a vacancy was claimed, whether the body followed the required legal steps (e.g., guardian ad litem appointed, licensed doctor's written finding).
These notes are based on a limited set of non-binding determination letters; facts matter and you should always verify the full PDFs and current law.
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-c-3.json.
Violation found (6)
Closed session discussion of commissioner absenteeism and vacancy
Rule: Section 2(c)(3) does not authorize closed session discussion of a commissioner's performance unless the board has authority to remove the official, and general absenteeism ordinance discussions are not covered.
Violation found Closed-session discussion of a board vacancy and discipline · November 26, 2025
Closed session discussion of City Clerk's performance/removal
Rule: A public body may discuss an officeholder's performance or removal in closed session only if it has the power to remove the occupant under law or ordinance.
Violation found A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position · July 13, 2022
Closed session discussion of recording secretary position
Rule: The recording secretary is not a public office, so section 2(c)(3) did not authorize closed session discussion of the performance or appointment of the recording secretary.
Violation found A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position · July 13, 2022
Authority to remove City Clerk under managerial form
Rule: No provision of the Illinois Municipal Code governing the managerial form of government permits the City Council to remove the elected city clerk from office.
Violation found A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position · July 13, 2022
Vacancy by disability as removal power
Rule: The power to declare a vacancy due to disability can only be exercised if a guardian ad litem is appointed or a licensed doctor makes a written finding of impairment, and no such conditions were satisfied.
Violation found A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position · July 13, 2022
Vacancy by abandonment as removal power
Rule: The ability to determine that an office is vacant by reason of abandonment does not empower the City Council to remove the City Clerk from office.
Violation found A city council's closed-session discussion of the city clerk position · July 13, 2022
No violation (1)
Closed session discussion of commissioner candidates
Rule: Discussion of candidate qualifications in closed session is permissible under the selection of a person to fill a public office exception, and any tentative consensus did not constitute final action because the Board voted in open session.
No violation Appointment of a park district board commissioner · June 12, 2026