City of Chicago Health in All Policies Task Force ruled a public body under Open Meetings Act

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- and Mr. Kassa:

On June 27, 2016, Lbmitted this Request for Review alleging that the Task Force, which was formed pursuant to a May.18, 2016, City of Chicago (City) City Council resolution, had failed to adhere to the requirements of OMA in connection with its meetings. On July 11, 20 I 6, this office sent a copy of the Request for Review to the City and asked it to furnish a detailed written response toĄ allegations.

On July 25, 20,16, the City responded, asserting that the Task Force was not a public body under OMA. On September 15, 2016, -replied to each of the City's arguments, reiterating her contention that the Task Force was subject to the requirements of OMA.

DETERMINATION

"In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of [OMA) to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.I' 5 ILCS 120/1 (West 2016).

Section 1.02 of OMA (5 ILCS 12911.02 (West 2016)) defines "public body" as:

I [A]ll legislative, executive, admiiystrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties, townships, cit!fs, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other munifipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissi7ns of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foĦe_going including but limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expJnd tax revenue, except the General Assembly and committeek or commissions thereof. (Emphasis addħd).

In University Professionals of Illinois, Local 4100 of the Illinois Federation of Teachers v. Stukel, 344 Ill. App. 3d 856 (I st Dist! 2003), the plaintiff alleged that a group of presidents and chancellors of public universities {council), which made recommendations to the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE), violated OMA by meeting privately before IBHE meetings to discuss issues related to funding for public education because it constituted an advisory body. Stukel, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 858. Iµ holding that the Council was not an advisory body of the IBHE for purposes of OMA, the cou r considered the following factors to be relevant to that assessment:

[ 1] who appoints the members of the entity, the formality of their appointmenĨ, and whether they arJ paid for their tenure; [2) the entity's assigned duties, including Uuties reflected in the entity's bylaws or authorizing statute; [3) {vhether its role is solely advisory or whether it also has a deliberati+ or investigative function; [4] whether the entity is subject to goyernment control or otherwise accountable to any public body; [ĩ) whethe_r the group has a budget; [6) its place within the larger organization or institution of which it is a part; and [7] the imp 'ct of decisions or recommendations that the group akes. Stukel, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 858.

Task Force Selectio and Membership I In its response to this office, the qity described the Task Force's organization and structure in relation to the Stukel factors set out above. Specifically, the City asserted that department heads were allowed to attend Task F6rce meetings or, in the alternative, designate technical employees to work on the respective isĞues in their place. The selection of Task Force members was an internal, informal department pğocess and all but two of the 31 Task Force meeting attendees were technical employees. In her reply, - contested the City's assertion that the appointment of Task Force merilbers was informal. She emphasized that the formally-adopted City resolution both expressly Ġuthorized department heads to designate attendees in their place should they not desire to ġerve, but also required various City departments to work together on the Health in A11 Policies initiative.

Task Force Duties and Compensation The City emphasized that, becausl members were already City department or agency employees, their attendance at meetings ras merely part Ģb duties and they received no additional compensation for their serice. However, - noted that, while Task Force members may not receive additional compfnsation for their service, they are compensated by the City for performing their assigned governyiental duties. - also provided several examples of Chicago-area public bodies that are fubject to the requirements of OMA despite their members receiving no outside compensatio l for their participation. -also minimized the fact that the Task Force lacked its own budget, noting that its members are paid government employees and that the Task Force c nvenes in City facilities, uses City supplies and administrative resources, and receives legal ģupport from the City's law department.

I I Task Force Accountabili( and Recommendations I The City next asserted that the Ta$k Force's sole purpose was to create a single report with respect to the Health in All Policies initiatives, and that those recommendations would not be binding on the City Council. Similkly, the City asserted, the Task Force was not created to continually adviseĤ Council, nĥr did the Task Force have any investigative or deliberative role. However, - countered !i,y citing the City Council's resolution, which commissioned the Task Force to do the following:

[I]dentify and pursue opportunitiJ to improve health, including but not limited to affordable, safe,f and healthy housing; active living and transportation; quality education; access to healthy food; clean air, water, and soil; parks, rebreation, and green spaces; economic opportunity; and safety I d violence prevention. All departments shall participate in developing ongoing channels for cross-department collaboration, identifying and pursuing funding streams that support improved heJith outcomes, ensuring that new investments support community hbalth goals, incorporating health criteria into planning and policy dbvelopment, sharing relevant data, and participating in collaborltive efforts to understand how built environment policies and prtigrams are affecting health outcomes. [I 1 , j - also noted that the Task Force was req ,ired to provide a report and make recommendations concerning,health policies to aid the City Council in its own deliberations.

With respect to t Since-submitted her Req6est for Review, the Task Force issued its Final Report on August 1, 2017, which noted that "[a]äer months of deliberation, 16 recommendations emerged from the process[.]"å e future of the Task Force, that report also provided the following:

:

.

I ' The HiAP Task Force was a working group established for the purpose ofproducing a one-tirp.e report for the City Council of the City of Chicago. To ensure health remains a central consideration ir how the City opefates, the Task Force recommends that its members m8et periodically to share updates andfeedhack on the implementation of these recommendations and to consider new opportunitie1 to work together to promote health.

The Task Force will continue in the form of a working group whose members will be designated informally by department heads and who will ncit be paid for their participation in the working group. The .Task F6rce will not have a budget of its own, nor will it be controlled by or be part of the formal organizational structure of any pu lie body. The Task Force will receive reports on HiAP activities and seek feedback on progress and emerging opportunities to ad ance health through City operations and policy.[Jl (Emphasis added.)

After careful review of both partils' arguments in light of the Stukel factors, together with our review of the final report issued by the Task Force, this office concludes that the Task Force is a public body that is subject to the requirements of OMA. Under the Stukel test, the role of the Task Force in identifying andl incorporating health-related policies affects numerous City departments. Although Task Forte members may have been informally selected by department heads through their own internal Ďrocess, the City Council's resolution expressly set out the procedures for such selection. Furthernore, although Task Force members may not have received additional compensation for their ďervice, the City acknowledged that Task Force membership could be considered an obligation of members' taxpayer-funded, government employment-this office has received no informĐtion indicating that Task Force members served on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, while the Tađk Force may have lacked its own budget, it has ' not been disputed that the Task Force had several of the City's resources at its disposal. Finally, although the City contends that the sole purpose bf the Task Force was to issue a single, non­ binding report to the City Council, that final rep 1rt includes a recommendation that it reconvene periodically to receive updates on progress and t hear feedback on ways to promote health through the conduct of City business.

l Despite the Task Force having iss ed its final report, for the reasons set out above, this office requests that the Task Force cohduct all future meetings in accordance with the ' provisions of the Act. Among other things, the Ēask Force should provide advance notice of its meetings (5 ILCS 120/2.02 (West 2016)), keep written minutes (5 ILCS 120/2.06(a) (West 2016)), and provide members of the public with ful opportunity to address Task Force members (5 ILCS 120/2.06(g) (West 2016)). This office alēo requests that each Task Force member complete the OMA electronic training curriculuĔ developed and administered by the Public Access Counselor. See 5 ILCS 120/1.05 (West 2016).

The Public Access Counselor has reterrnined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. Tqis letter serves to close this matter. If you have any questions, you may contact me at the Springf eld address on the first page of this letter.

Very truly yours, CHjUSTOPHER R. BOGGS Assjstant Attorney General Pub ic Access Bureau 42647 o vio mun