OMA section 3.5(a)

OMA

5 ILCS 120/3.5(a). Section 3.5 overview: Sets up the same kind of Public Access Counselor review process FOIA has: a person who believes a meeting violated OMA can file a Request for Review with the Attorney General's office within 60 days of the alleged violation.

35 issues across 33 determination letters:1 violation found · 10 no violation · 23 no determination / resolved · 1 other.

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 Determination letters are not binding precedent.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

A village board's restrictive public comment policies (PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 37391) cited 1 times
Approval of a severance agreement on a school board agenda (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 23-004) 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 Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice.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

You are filing as any person who believes a violation occurred, even if you are not the most directly affected. The Bureau has confirmed that standing under OMA is broad; any person may file a request for review.Based on: 2018 · School board's public comment pol… · 2016 · A village board's restrictive pub…

When the public body usually wins

The request for review was filed more than 60 days after the alleged violation, and the requester did not show reasonable diligence in discovering it earlier. The Bureau strictly enforces the 60-day deadline, and without evidence of late discovery, the request is untimely.Based on: 2017 · Posting of approved open meeting … · 2017 · Posting of approved open meeting … · 2018 · A village trustee's right to addr…
+7 more
2019 · A committee meeting with a quorum… · 2018 · Maintenance and storage of open s… · 2022 · A school board's closed-session d… · 2022 · A school board's 30-minute public… · 2023 · Closed-session discussions of a 2… · 2018 · A council's meeting notices and m… · 2018 · A board member ordering a technic…
The request for review lacks specific dates or enough facts to support the allegation. The Bureau will not investigate vague or undated claims.Based on: 2023 · Private board meetings to discuss… · 2023 · Meeting location notice on a hosp… · 2020 · A city council's restriction of p…
+1 more
2019 · Private meetings of city council …
The request challenges a public body's voting at a committee of the whole meeting. The Bureau has found that OMA does not limit voting at such meetings.Based on: 2025 · Meeting agenda descriptions for f…

Points to put in your letter

State the exact date you discovered the violation and explain why it could not have been discovered sooner, especially if it involved a closed session.Based on: 2022 · A city council's closed-session d… · 2020 · An advisory committee's closed me… · 2020 · Closed-session discussions of a p…
Include the date or approximate date of the meeting or action you are challenging.Based on: 2019 · Private meetings of city council …
Describe the steps you took to uncover the violation (e.g., reviewing minutes, filing FOIA requests) to show reasonable diligence.Based on: 2018 · A board retreat at a remote locat… · 2017 · Closed-session termination of an …
Remind the Bureau that any person may file a request for review, not just those directly involved.Based on: 2018 · School board's public comment pol… · 2016 · A village board's restrictive pub…

Common mistakes

Assuming the 60-day deadline always starts on the meeting date, without considering the discovery rule for hidden violations.Based on: 2017 · Posting of approved open meeting … · 2017 · Posting of approved open meeting …
Filing a request for review without stating the date of the alleged violation.Based on: 2019 · Private meetings of city council …
Filing a request for review before the meeting has actually occurred.Based on: 2022 · A school board's remote special m…
Believing that only a person directly harmed by the violation can file a request for review.Based on: 2018 · School board's public comment pol… · 2016 · A village board's restrictive pub…

Facts to gather first

The date of the meeting or action you allege violated OMA.
The date you first learned of the violation and how you learned it (e.g., from minutes, a news article, a FOIA response).
Records of your efforts to discover the violation, such as dates you attended meetings, reviewed minutes, or submitted FOIA requests.
If the violation involved a closed session, the date the closed session minutes were approved or made public.

These notes are based on non-binding determination letters from the Public Access Bureau; outcomes depend on specific facts, and you should verify the full text of any cited decision.

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-3-5-a.json.

TOPIC: 5 ILCS 120/3.5(a)
SOURCE: Illinois Attorney General Public Access Bureau decisions compiled at https://illinoisfoia.org/issues/oma-3-5-a/
NOTE: Determination letters are not binding precedent; they show how the Bureau applies the law. Verify every decision against the source PDF before citing it.

VIOLATION FOUND (1):
- Standing to file request for review
  Rule: OMA allows any person who believes a violation occurred to file a request for review; standing is not limited to those directly affected.
  Decision: School board's public comment policy and its enforcement (non-binding determination letter, April 24, 2018) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-51302/

NO VIOLATION (10):
- Voting at committee of the whole meeting
  Rule: OMA does not limit a public body's ability to vote on agenda items at a meeting designated as a committee of the whole meeting.
  Decision: Meeting agenda descriptions for final action items (non-binding determination letter, June 26, 2025) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-87259/
- Timeliness of Requests for Review
  Rule: Requests for review based on newly discovered facts from FOIA responses within 60 days are timely, even if allegations involve some speculation about closed sessions.
  Decision: Closed-session discussions of school closures and budget cuts (non-binding determination letter, November 8, 2024) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-77626/
- Timeliness of Request for Review
  Rule: The 60-day filing period is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a weekend or holiday, in which case it is also excluded.
  Decision: A library board's appointment of a trustee not on the agenda (non-binding determination letter, November 8, 2023) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-75844/
- Timeliness of Request for Review
  Rule: A request for review is timely if filed within 60 days of discovering facts concerning the alleged violation when the violation occurred in closed session and could not have been discovered earlier.
  Decision: A city council's closed-session discussion of a conditional use permit (non-binding determination letter, July 5, 2022) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-68363/
- Timeliness of Request for Review
  Rule: Request for Review was timely because requester did not discover alleged violations within 60 days despite reasonable diligence and filed within 60 days of discovery.
  Decision: An advisory committee's closed meetings and missing records (non-binding determination letter, July 31, 2020) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-60134/
- Timeliness of request for review of June 4, 2019 meeting
  Rule: Request for review was timely because facts of the closed session violation could not have been discovered until the September 10, 2019 public approval.
  Decision: Closed-session discussions of a potential real estate purchase (non-binding determination letter, June 8, 2020) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-59963/
- Timeliness of request for review
  Rule: Request filed within 60 days of discovery of alleged violation, which occurred at a press conference, was timely.
  Decision: Closed-session discussion about a library branch relocation (non-binding determination letter, April 2, 2019) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-55687/
- Timeliness of request for review
  Rule: Request for review was timely because the alleged violations occurred in closed session and the requester could not have discovered them earlier despite reasonable diligence.
  Decision: Closed-session discussion of police service consolidation (non-binding determination letter, April 18, 2018) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-51987/
- Timeliness of request for review under reasonable diligence
  Rule: Request for review was timely because requester used reasonable diligence and did not discover material facts until later.
  Decision: Closed-session termination of an employee (non-binding determination letter, November 28, 2017) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-49854/
- Standing to file OMA request for review
  Rule: Any person who believes a public body violated OMA may file a request for review; standing is not limited to the person most directly affected.
  Decision: A village board's restrictive public comment policies (non-binding determination letter, January 11, 2016) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-37391/

NO DETERMINATION / RESOLVED (23, 20 shown):
- Public comment rules previously addressed
  Rule: No further action is warranted on public comment rules because the Public Access Bureau previously addressed those concerns in an earlier request for review.
  Decision: Virtual meeting registration and public comment rules (non-binding determination letter, September 11, 2023) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-77875/
- Virtual attendance rules without specific application
  Rule: The office will not review a public body's rules absent an allegation that the rules were applied in a manner that violated OMA.
  Decision: Virtual meeting registration and public comment rules (non-binding determination letter, September 11, 2023) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-77875/
- Timeliness of Request for Review
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation unless facts are discovered later despite reasonable diligence, in which case it may be filed within 60 days of discovery, not exceeding 2 years.
  Decision: Closed-session discussion of a pathway vacation ordinance (non-binding determination letter, November 21, 2023) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76914/
- Untimely Request for Review
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation, or within 60 days of discovery if discovered later, but no more than 2 years after the violation.
  Decision: Closed-session discussions of a 2016 sewer project (non-binding determination letter, May 25, 2023) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76520/
- Closed session minutes review and posting allegations
  Rule: Generalized allegations without supporting facts do not warrant further inquiry under OMA.
  Decision: Meeting location notice on a hospital board agenda (non-binding determination letter, June 13, 2023) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-75513/
- Alleged improper meetings on unspecified dates
  Rule: Request for Review lacked sufficient facts because no dates or approximate dates were provided for the alleged meetings.
  Decision: Private board meetings to discuss appointing a village president (non-binding determination letter, June 13, 2023) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-71226/
- Timeliness of Request for Review for February 23, 2021, September 29, 2020, and July 28, 2020 meetings
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation, or within 60 days of discovery if the violation was not reasonably discoverable within that period.
  Decision: A school board's closed-session discussions and failure to review minutes (non-binding determination letter, April 14, 2022) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-72129/
- PAC authority over former board member's alleged OMA violation
  Rule: The PAC lacks authority to review an OMA request for review that does not allege a violation by a public body.
  Decision: A former board member's blog post with closed-session audio (non-binding determination letter, April 7, 2022) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-70648/
- Premature request for review before meeting occurred
  Rule: A request for review submitted before the challenged meeting occurs is premature because no violation could have happened yet.
  Decision: A school board's remote special meeting (non-binding determination letter, March 15, 2022) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-70010/
- Superintendent's communications practices
  Rule: The Public Access Counselor's review is limited to alleged OMA violations, and communications practices do not allege an OMA violation.
  Decision: A school board member's remote attendance and access to documents (non-binding determination letter, February 9, 2022) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-69602/
- February 20, 2017 meeting time reduction
  Rule: A request for review filed more than 60 days after the alleged violation, and more than two years after discovery, is time-barred.
  Decision: A school board's 30-minute public comment limit (non-binding determination letter, April 8, 2022) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-68199/
- Timeliness of Request for Review
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation, or within 60 days of discovery if facts were not discovered with reasonable diligence, but no later than 2 years after the violation.
  Decision: Destruction of closed-session recordings by a university board (non-binding determination letter, November 9, 2021) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-72122/
- Inconsistent enforcement of rules
  Rule: A request for review must include a summary of facts sufficient to support a violation; vague allegations do not warrant further action.
  Decision: A city council's restriction of public comment time (non-binding determination letter, March 10, 2020) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-56926/
- Request for Review lacks date of alleged violation
  Rule: A Request for Review must include the date or approximate date of the alleged violation to satisfy the 60-day filing requirement and warrant further action.
  Decision: Private meetings of city council members at local establishments (non-binding determination letter, May 2, 2019) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-57843/
- Timeliness of request for review under reasonable diligence
  Rule: Request for review was timely because the requester could not discover the closed session subject matter within 60 days despite reasonable diligence.
  Decision: Closed-session discussion of an executive director succession plan (non-binding determination letter, May 31, 2019) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-54122/
- Untimely allegations of agenda deviation and improper closure
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation unless facts were not discovered within that period.
  Decision: A committee meeting with a quorum of the village board (non-binding determination letter, December 6, 2019) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-48812/
- Timeliness of notice allegations for older meetings
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation or discovery; without evidence of reasonable diligence, older claims are untimely and outside the PAC's authority.
  Decision: A council's meeting notices and member OMA training (non-binding determination letter, December 19, 2018) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-54184/
- January 8, 2018 meeting violation alleged untimely
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days after the alleged violation, so the Public Access Counselor cannot address untimely allegations.
  Decision: A village trustee's right to address the board (non-binding determination letter, April 6, 2018) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52413/
- Timeliness of request for review
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of discovering the alleged violation; if not, the PAC lacks authority to review.
  Decision: A board member ordering a technician to stop recording a closed session (non-binding determination letter, May 9, 2018) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-50757/
- Timeliness of allegations from before 60 days
  Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation unless facts were not discovered despite reasonable diligence.
  Decision: Maintenance and storage of open session minutes and closed session recordings (non-binding determination letter, March 28, 2018) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-50424/

OTHER (1):
- Timeliness of Request for Review
  Rule: A request for review filed within 60 days of discovering facts about a closed session violation, and within two years of the violation, is timely.
  Decision: Closed-session discussion of a property sale (non-binding determination letter, June 3, 2022) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-69094/

MOST-CITED AUTHORITIES: Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 37391; Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 23-004

TASK FOR THE ASSISTANT: Using only the decisions above, help draft a letter. Argue from the rule and cite the decision by name and date. Do not invent decisions.

Violation found (1)

Standing to file request for review
Rule: OMA allows any person who believes a violation occurred to file a request for review; standing is not limited to those directly affected.
Violation found School board's public comment policy and its enforcement · April 24, 2018

No violation (10)

Voting at committee of the whole meeting
Rule: OMA does not limit a public body's ability to vote on agenda items at a meeting designated as a committee of the whole meeting.
No violation Meeting agenda descriptions for final action items · June 26, 2025
Timeliness of Requests for Review
Rule: Requests for review based on newly discovered facts from FOIA responses within 60 days are timely, even if allegations involve some speculation about closed sessions.
No violation Closed-session discussions of school closures and budget cuts · November 8, 2024
Timeliness of Request for Review
Rule: The 60-day filing period is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a weekend or holiday, in which case it is also excluded.
No violation A library board's appointment of a trustee not on the agenda · November 8, 2023
Timeliness of Request for Review
Rule: A request for review is timely if filed within 60 days of discovering facts concerning the alleged violation when the violation occurred in closed session and could not have been discovered earlier.
No violation A city council's closed-session discussion of a conditional use permit · July 5, 2022
Timeliness of Request for Review
Rule: Request for Review was timely because requester did not discover alleged violations within 60 days despite reasonable diligence and filed within 60 days of discovery.
No violation An advisory committee's closed meetings and missing records · July 31, 2020
Timeliness of request for review of June 4, 2019 meeting
Rule: Request for review was timely because facts of the closed session violation could not have been discovered until the September 10, 2019 public approval.
No violation Closed-session discussions of a potential real estate purchase · June 8, 2020
Timeliness of request for review
Rule: Request filed within 60 days of discovery of alleged violation, which occurred at a press conference, was timely.
No violation Closed-session discussion about a library branch relocation · April 2, 2019
Timeliness of request for review
Rule: Request for review was timely because the alleged violations occurred in closed session and the requester could not have discovered them earlier despite reasonable diligence.
No violation Closed-session discussion of police service consolidation · April 18, 2018
Timeliness of request for review under reasonable diligence
Rule: Request for review was timely because requester used reasonable diligence and did not discover material facts until later.
No violation Closed-session termination of an employee · November 28, 2017
Standing to file OMA request for review
Rule: Any person who believes a public body violated OMA may file a request for review; standing is not limited to the person most directly affected.
No violation A village board's restrictive public comment policies · January 11, 2016

No determination / resolved (23)

Public comment rules previously addressed
Rule: No further action is warranted on public comment rules because the Public Access Bureau previously addressed those concerns in an earlier request for review.
No determination / resolved Virtual meeting registration and public comment rules · September 11, 2023
Virtual attendance rules without specific application
Rule: The office will not review a public body's rules absent an allegation that the rules were applied in a manner that violated OMA.
No determination / resolved Virtual meeting registration and public comment rules · September 11, 2023
Timeliness of Request for Review
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation unless facts are discovered later despite reasonable diligence, in which case it may be filed within 60 days of discovery, not exceeding 2 years.
No determination / resolved Closed-session discussion of a pathway vacation ordinance · November 21, 2023
Untimely Request for Review
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation, or within 60 days of discovery if discovered later, but no more than 2 years after the violation.
No determination / resolved Closed-session discussions of a 2016 sewer project · May 25, 2023
Closed session minutes review and posting allegations
Rule: Generalized allegations without supporting facts do not warrant further inquiry under OMA.
No determination / resolved Meeting location notice on a hospital board agenda · June 13, 2023
Alleged improper meetings on unspecified dates
Rule: Request for Review lacked sufficient facts because no dates or approximate dates were provided for the alleged meetings.
No determination / resolved Private board meetings to discuss appointing a village president · June 13, 2023
Timeliness of Request for Review for February 23, 2021, September 29, 2020, and July 28, 2020 meetings
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation, or within 60 days of discovery if the violation was not reasonably discoverable within that period.
No determination / resolved A school board's closed-session discussions and failure to review minutes · April 14, 2022
PAC authority over former board member's alleged OMA violation
Rule: The PAC lacks authority to review an OMA request for review that does not allege a violation by a public body.
No determination / resolved A former board member's blog post with closed-session audio · April 7, 2022
Premature request for review before meeting occurred
Rule: A request for review submitted before the challenged meeting occurs is premature because no violation could have happened yet.
No determination / resolved A school board's remote special meeting · March 15, 2022
Superintendent's communications practices
Rule: The Public Access Counselor's review is limited to alleged OMA violations, and communications practices do not allege an OMA violation.
No determination / resolved A school board member's remote attendance and access to documents · February 9, 2022
February 20, 2017 meeting time reduction
Rule: A request for review filed more than 60 days after the alleged violation, and more than two years after discovery, is time-barred.
No determination / resolved A school board's 30-minute public comment limit · April 8, 2022
Timeliness of Request for Review
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation, or within 60 days of discovery if facts were not discovered with reasonable diligence, but no later than 2 years after the violation.
No determination / resolved Destruction of closed-session recordings by a university board · November 9, 2021
Inconsistent enforcement of rules
Rule: A request for review must include a summary of facts sufficient to support a violation; vague allegations do not warrant further action.
No determination / resolved A city council's restriction of public comment time · March 10, 2020
Request for Review lacks date of alleged violation
Rule: A Request for Review must include the date or approximate date of the alleged violation to satisfy the 60-day filing requirement and warrant further action.
No determination / resolved Private meetings of city council members at local establishments · May 2, 2019
Timeliness of request for review under reasonable diligence
Rule: Request for review was timely because the requester could not discover the closed session subject matter within 60 days despite reasonable diligence.
No determination / resolved Closed-session discussion of an executive director succession plan · May 31, 2019
Untimely allegations of agenda deviation and improper closure
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation unless facts were not discovered within that period.
No determination / resolved A committee meeting with a quorum of the village board · December 6, 2019
Timeliness of notice allegations for older meetings
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation or discovery; without evidence of reasonable diligence, older claims are untimely and outside the PAC's authority.
No determination / resolved A council's meeting notices and member OMA training · December 19, 2018
January 8, 2018 meeting violation alleged untimely
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days after the alleged violation, so the Public Access Counselor cannot address untimely allegations.
No determination / resolved A village trustee's right to address the board · April 6, 2018
Timeliness of request for review
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of discovering the alleged violation; if not, the PAC lacks authority to review.
No determination / resolved A board member ordering a technician to stop recording a closed session · May 9, 2018
Timeliness of allegations from before 60 days
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation unless facts were not discovered despite reasonable diligence.
No determination / resolved Maintenance and storage of open session minutes and closed session recordings · March 28, 2018
Timeliness of Requests for Review
Rule: Requests for Review were timely because the requesters used reasonable diligence and discovered the alleged violation only after reviewing financial records in October 2017.
No determination / resolved A board retreat at a remote location · March 9, 2018
Timeliness of request for review of September 19, 2016 meeting minutes posting
Rule: A request for review must be filed within 60 days of the violation if the violation is discovered within that period; otherwise, the PAC lacks authority to review.
No determination / resolved Posting of approved open meeting minutes on a school board's website · February 22, 2017
Timeliness of request for review of August 15, 2016 meeting minutes posting
Rule: A request for review filed more than 60 days after the violation is timely only if the requester used reasonable diligence in discovering the violation.
No determination / resolved Posting of approved open meeting minutes on a school board's website · February 22, 2017

Other (1)

Timeliness of Request for Review
Rule: A request for review filed within 60 days of discovering facts about a closed session violation, and within two years of the violation, is timely.
Other Closed-session discussion of a property sale · June 3, 2022