Illinois FOIA & OMA Reference: 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(4) https://illinoisfoia.org/exemptions/5-ilcs-120-2-c-4/ 2026-01-02T00:00:00Z Chicago Board of Ethics violated OMA by discussing advisory opinion in closed session https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-84086/ 2026-01-02T00:00:00Z A citizen complained that the Chicago Board of Ethics held a private meeting to discuss a specific advisory opinion, which the citizen believed should have been public. The Attorney General's office reviewed the meeting records and agreed that the Board broke the law by keeping that discussion private. The Board has been asked to release the minutes and recording of that specific portion of the meeting. Chicago Board of Ethics violated OMA by discussing policy matters in closed session https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-72604/ 2024-09-18T00:00:00Z A citizen complained that the Chicago Board of Ethics discussed policy issues in a private meeting that should have been held in public. The Attorney General's office reviewed the meeting recording and agreed that the Board improperly discussed these topics behind closed doors. The Board has been asked to release the portions of the meeting minutes and recordings related to those specific discussions. Chicago Board of Ethics violated OMA by discussing query report in closed session https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-74629/ 2023-08-10T00:00:00Z A citizen complained that the Chicago Board of Ethics held a private meeting to discuss a report that should have been discussed in public. The Attorney General's office reviewed the meeting recording and found that the Board did not have a legal reason to keep that specific discussion private. This means the Board failed to follow the transparency requirements of the Open Meetings Act. Evanston Board of Ethics did not violate OMA by entering closed session on ethics jurisdiction https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-62578/ 2020-07-23T00:00:00Z A citizen alleged that a municipal ethics board improperly held closed session to consider its jurisdiction over ethics complaints. The PAC determined that the complaints and a complainant's argument constituted "evidence or testimony" properly considered in closed session under the Open Meetings Act's quasi-adjudicative exception, and that the board had issued, or committed to issue, written decisions setting out its reasoning as that exception requires. The board did not improperly enter close