Duty to Approve Meeting Minutes Within Time Period Specified by OMA

This reading view follows the source PDF's positioned text blocks. Page headers, repeated office furniture, and lower-margin notes are kept out of the narrative; source notes are available below. Reconstruction is automatic and imperfect — the PDF is the authoritative version, and it's linked on this page.

Dear Mr. LaRock and Mr. Burgess:

This binding opinion is issued pursuant to section 3.5(e) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (5 ILCS 120/3.5(e) (West 2018)). For the reasons discussed below, this office concludes that the Board of Trustees (Board) of the. Village of Sauk Village (Village) violated OMA because it did not approve minutes of three meetings within the time periods specified by OMA.

t ( | { i |

BACKGROUND

| On November 13, 2019, Mr. Steve LaRock submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Bureau via e-mail alleging that the Board violated section 2.06(b) of OMA (5 ILCS 120/2.06(b) (West 2018)).' Specifically, Mr. LaRock asserted that at the Board's November 12, 2019, regular meeting, the Board approved the minutes of its September 10, 2019, regular meeting, its September 10, 2019, special meeting, and its September 17, 2019, Committee of the Whole meeting, but that the approval of these minutes was not within the time periods specified by OMA.* Mr. LaRock provided this office with a copy of the agenda for the November 12, 2019, meeting, which contains the following item:

4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Motion to Approve the Journal of Proceedings for the Special Meeting of September 10, 2019 b. Motion to Approve the Journal of Proceedings for the Regular Board Meeting of September 10, 2019 Motion to Approve the Journal of Proceedings for the Committee Meeting of September 17, 2019"!

On November 18, 2019, the Public Access Bureau forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to the Village’ s mayor, the Honorable Derrick Burgess, and asked the Board for "a written answer to Mr. LaRock's allegation that it did not approve the minutes of its September 10, 2019, meeting in a timely manner."* This office also. asked the Board to "verify how many regular meetings the Board held from September 10, 2019, through November 12, 2019."° The Public Access Bureau received the Board's answer from Village Administrator, Mr. Christopher A. Williams. ;In his December 11, 2019, e-mail, Mr. Williams stated that "we acknowledge the minutes were not approved and posted at our standard frequency because of the significant increase in meetings. "© He asserted that it was "impossible to meet the tenets of OMA relative to completing minutes within a thirty (30) day period" given the volume of meetings and staffing shortages.’ Mr. Williams attached a "Chart of Meetings from 05/21/2019 — 11/19/2019," which reflects that the Board held the following meetings: (1) regular meetings on September 10, 2019, September 24, 2019, October 8, 2019, and October 22, 2019;° (2) special meetings on September 10, 2019, September 26, 2019, and October 15, 201 9; and (3) Committee — of the Whole meetings.on September 17, 2019, October 1, 2019, October 15, 2019, November 5, 2019, and November 12, 2019.

On December 12, 2019, an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) in the Public Access Bureau sent Mr. Williams an e-mail asking "although my letter addressed the September 10, 2019, regular Board meeting in particular, am I correct to assume that your response also pertains to the September 10, 2019, special meeting and September 17, 2019, Committee of the Whole meeting?”® On that same date, Mr. Williams responded in the affirmative.'® Also on that same date, this office forwarded to Mr. LaRock copies of the Board's answer and Mr. Williams' confirmation about the special meetings and Committee of the Whole meetings.'' Later still on that date, Mr. LaRock submitted a reply.'!* He attached Board and Commitiee of the Whole meeting agendas from throughout 2019 and alleged that they illustrate a pattern of the Board approving minutes past the statutory deadline. On January 3, 2020, the Public Access Bureau properly extended the time within which to issue a binding opinion by 21 business days, to February 10, 2020, pursuant to section 3.5(e) of OMA."

E-mail from hope Williams to [Joshua] Jones (December 11, 2019).

! ANALYSIS Under OMA, "Lilt is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’ S business and that the people have a ri ight to be informed as to the conduct of their business." 5 ILCS 120/1 (West 2018).

Section 2. 06(a) of OMA (5 ILCS 120/2.06(a) (West 2018)) provides that "{a]ll public bodies shall keep written minutes of all their meetings, whether open or closed[.]"

Section 2.06(b) adds that "[a] public body shall approve the minutes of its open meeting within 30 days after that meeting or at the public body's second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later." (Emphasis added.) Section 2.06(b) also requires minutes to be made available for public inspection within 10 days after approval by the public body. Thus, the issue here is whether the Board's approval of minutes of the three meetings in question complied with this provision.

In construing a statute, the primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Dep't of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390, 415 (2006). "[T]he surest and most reliable indicator of" legislative intent "is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning." Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. Attorney General of Illinois, 2017 IL 120343, 924, 17 N.E.3d 625, 630 (2017).

The language of section 2, 06(b) of OMA is clear. A public body is required to approve the minutes of an open meeting. within 30 days after that meeting ar at its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever date is later in time. Accordingly, if a public body holds two or more regular meetings within 30 days or less, it is required to approve the minutes of the first meeting by the 30th day after that meeting. On the other hand, if 30 days have elapsed after a meeting but the public body. ‘has not yet helda second subsequent regular. meeting, the public body has until the second subsequent regular meeting to approve the minutes. Thus, depending on the public body’ S meeting s schedule, the time frame for approval of minutes can vary.

In applying section 2. 06(b) of OMA, this office notes that. a committee of the whole" is not a committee of a public body in the typical sense of a subset of the members of a public body who focus on a particular subject matter, such as, for example, a Finance Committee, Public Safety Committee, or Water and Sewer Committee. Rat ther, a "committee of the whole" is defined as: )

A committee that comprises. all the del iberative assembly’ S members who are present. ¢ A deliberative assembly may resolve itself into a committee of the whole so that it can take advantage of | F presided over by some chair other than the assembly S regular chair. Black's Law Dictionary an ith ed. 2019), available at Westlaw BLACKS. :

Meetings of a committee of the whole enable a full public body to meet and discuss issues under relaxed procedural rules without taking final action. The Board confirmed that its Committee of the Whole meetings "are administrative meetings in which all Corporate Authorities (Mayor and Board of Trustees) are present to discuss items then placed on the agenda for Board meeting."!* Therefore, the Committee of the Whole is not a "public body" distinct from the Board for purposes of OMA." Asa result, section 2.06(b) of OMA requires the Board to approve the minutes of a Committee of the Whole meeting within 30 days after the meeting or at the Board's second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later.

In this matter, the facts are undisputed that the Board did noi approve the minutes of its September 10, 2019, regular meeting, September 10, 2019, special meeting, or September 17, 2019, Committee of the Whole meeting by the statutory deadlines. Specifically, on October 8, 2019, the Board held its second subsequent regular meeting after its September 10, 2019, regular and special meetings. Therefore the 30-day deadline, October 10, 2019, was later than | | Because the Board did not approve the minutes of the three meetings until November 12, 2019, which was after the. statutory deadline for doing so, the Board violated section 2.06(b) of OMA.

:

‘FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS After full examination and giving due consideration to the information submitted, the Public Access Counselor's S review, and the applicable. law, the Attorney General finds that:

1) On November 13, 2019, Mr. Steve LaRock submitted a Request for Review alleging that the Sauk Village Board of Trustees violated OMA by failing to approve the minutes of its September 10, 2019, regular meeting, September 10, 2019, special meeting, and September 17, 2019, Committee of the Whole meeting within the statutory time periocis. He stated that an item on the agenda for the Board's November 12, 2019, regular meeting listed the approval of those three sets of minutes. Mr. LaRock's Request for Review was timely filed and otherwise complies with the requirements of section 3.5(a) of OMA (5 ILCS 120/3.5(a) (West 2018)).

, 8) The language of section 2. 06(b) is clear. .A public body has 30 days after a meeting or until its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever 1 is later, to approve the meeting minutes. | 9) The Committee of the Whole is not a publi ¢ body separate from the Board for purposes of OMA,; it is the same public body meeting in a different format.

10) Itis undisputed that the Board did not approve the minutes of its September 10, 2019, regular meeting, September 10, 2019, special meeting, or September 17, 2019, Committee of the Whole meeting within 30 days after each meeting. Because the Board held two subsequent regular meetings after each of those three meetings before the 30-day periods had elapsed, the deadline for the Board to approve each set of minutes was 30 days after the respective meetings. !

\ 11) Although the Board claimed that it was impossible to approve the minutes in a timely manner because of the frequency of its meetings and staffing shortages, section 2.06(b) of OMA does not contain an exception to the requirement to approve meeti ng minutes within 30 days after a meeting or by the;public body's second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is 1 | This opinion shall be considered a final decision of an administrative agency for the purpose of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law. 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seg. (West 2018). An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision by filing a complaint for administrative'review in the Circuit Court of Cook County or Sangamon County i within 35 days of the date ofthis decision, naming the Attorney General of Illinois and Steve LaRock as defendants. See 5 ILCS 120/7.5 (West 2018).

Sincerely, | KWAME RAOUL : ATTORNEY GENERAL ! _ | Brent D. Stratton Chief Deputy Attorney General.

copy of the foregoing Binding Opinion (Public Access Opinion 20-001) upon: , | Mr. Steve LaRock | 2444 Apache Avenue | Sauk Village, Illinois 60411 | Steve. [email protected] | The Honorable Derrick Burgess Mayor Village of Sauk Village 21801 Torrence Avenue Sauk Village, Illinois 60411 Dburgess@Sauk Village.org by causing a true copy thereof to be sent electronically to the addresses as listed above and by causing to be mailed a true copy thereof in correctly addressed, prepaid envelopes to be deposited in the United States mail at Springfield, Illinois on February 10, 2020.

Public Access Counselor