This site is a research reference, not legal advice. See the FAQ disclaimer for details.

5 ILCS 120/2(c)

OMA

General closed-session exceptions

General closed-session exceptions (cites Sec. 2(c) as a whole without naming a specific numbered exception)

Follow updates (RSS)

Read the full statute text on /statutes →

Jump to the 1 issue decided under this provision, with a drafting brief ↓

0 upheld (no violation found) · 14 rejected (violation found) · 2 partial violation, out of 16 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)

Section 2(c) of the Open Meetings Act lists the narrow topics a public body may discuss in closed session, and a meeting must otherwise remain open. The decisions in this group cite Section 2(c) as a whole, without focusing on a single numbered exception, to test whether a closed discussion was allowed at all.

Across these decisions the Public Access Counselor applied the exceptions narrowly and found violations where closed discussions went beyond any permitted topic. Examples included tax-increment-financing loans, book-removal and curriculum decisions, budgets and pay raises, audits and rule changes, bidding and consolidation plans, and property or financial matters, as well as failures to follow proper closing procedures and to take final action in open session.

At a glance: 16 documents from 2013 to 2026(7 binding opinions, 9 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1) (Employee/contractor appointment, discipline, or performance) (1).

Recurring issues

Practical points

Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.

All 16 documents citing 5 ILCS 120/2(c)

Issues decided under 5 ILCS 120/2(c)

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.

1 issue across 1 determination letter: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 Determination letters are not binding precedent.

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.json.

No violation (1)