Coles County Board violated OMA by failing to post agenda 48 hours in advance

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 Ms. Karpus- Komada:

No agenda was posted." 1 also alleged that the agenda did not provide the public with sufficient notice for the Board' s votes on the six items listed under the heading " Committee Reports." 2 On April 21, 2017, this office sent a copy of the Request for Review to the Board and requested that it provide a detailed response to s allegations, together with copies of the notice, agenda, and meeting minutes for the April 11, 2017, meeting. On April 24, 2017, the Board responded, providing copies of the agenda and minutes and an e- mail from its Information Technology ( IT) Department stating that the agenda was posted on the County' s website on April 5, 2017, but acknowledging that the link to the agenda was not working during a portion of the 48 hours preceding the meeting. On May 10, 2017, submitted a reply stating that the Board' s acknowledgement that the link to the agenda was not working validated his claim about the website posting. He also noted that the Board had not addressed his allegation concerning the sufficiency of the notice for the " Committee Reports" action items.

On August 17, 2017, an Assistant Attorney General in the Public Access Bureau asked the Board whether it wished to provide a written response addressing allegations. Later that same day, the Board provided the following:

The notice of meeting was sent February 22, 2017 and put on the County' s website. The Agenda was sent April 5, 2017 and put on the website. Coles County has a full time IT person that updates the website daily. The Agenda was also displayed on the County Board Office' s door across the hall from the County Board meeting room on April 5, 201721 On August 21, 2017, this office forwarded a copy of the Board's supplemental response to did not submit a further reply.

DETERMINATION

The intent of OMA is to " ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly" and to ensure that individuals are " given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way." 5 ILCS 120/ 1 ( West 2016).

Posting of Meeting Agenda Section 2. 02(a) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/2.02(a) ( West 2016)) provides, in pertinent part:

An agenda for each regular meeting shall be posted at the principal office of the public body and at the location where the meeting is to be held at least 48 hours in advance of the holding of the meeting. A public body that has a website that the full-time staff of the public body maintains shall also post on its website the agenda of any regular meetings of the governing body of that public body.

of the building or an adjacent window facing outside, to ensure at least one copy of the agenda remains continuously available. See, e. g., Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 29886, issued September 16, 2014, at 2- 3 ( determining that a public body " should post meeting notices in a location where they may be continuously viewable from the outside of [the meeting location], such as on or near the front door or facing outward from a window.").

Notice of Final Action Section 2.02( c) of OMA provides that "[ a]ny agenda required under this Section shall set forth the general subject matter of any resolution or ordinance that will be the subject of final action at the meeting." ( Emphasis added.)

The Senate debate on House Bill No. 4687, which was enacted as Public Act 97- 827, effective January 1, 2013, added section 2.02(c) of OMA, indicates that the General Assembly intended this provision to ensure that agendas provide sufficiently descriptive advance notice of the matters upon which a public body anticipates taking final action:

T]here was just no real requirement as to how specific they needed to be to the public of what they were going to discuss that would be final action. And this just says that you have to have a general notice if you' re going to have and take final action, as to generally what' s going to be discussed so that — that people who follow their units of local government know what they' re going to be acting upon. Remarks of Sen. Dillard, May 16, 2012, Senate Debate on House Bill No. 4687, at 47.

While OMA does not define the term " general subject matter," the Public Access Bureau has previously determined that the General Assembly' s use of the term " general subject matter" signifies that a meeting agenda must setforth the main element(s), rather than the specific details, of an item on which the public body intends to take final action." ( Emphasis added.) I11.

Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr 46368, issued April 13, 2017, at 3.

alleged that the action items. under the " Committee Reports" section of the agenda did not provide the public with sufficient advance notice of the final actions to be taken, and the Board's responses to this office did not address that allegation. Nonetheless, this office's review of the agenda provided in the Board's initial response indicated that four of the six subject matter of the Board's final actions. Pursuant to these agenda items, the Board voted to 1) approve the participation of elected officials in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, which is a public pension system commonly known by its acronym " IMRF," 5 ( 2) authorize the County Treasurer to transfer funds from other County funds to the County general fund as a loan and to issue anticipation warrants,' ( 3) indemnify the former Coles County State' s Attorney for the lawful actions taken by his office during his tenure,' and ( 4) approve a resolution selling two properties that the County acquired an interest in due to delinquent taxes. 8 While greater detail may have been helpful to interested members of the public, these agenda items did identify the general subject matters of the Board' s final actions. Accordingly, this office is unable to conclude that the Board violated the advance notice requirement of section 2.02( c) of OMA with respect to those agenda items.

However, the remaining two referenced agenda items — "Res. re: Dial -A -Ride Grant" and " County Bridge Fund Petitioni9 — were simply too vague to provide the public with adequate advance notice of any final action to be taken. Pursuant to these agenda items, the Board approved a resolution authorizing the County to provide public transportation within county limits, 1" and appropriated funds towards a proposed bridge/drainage project.' While the Board was not required to provide specific details concerning each of these action items, the notice provided did not adequately set forth the main elements of the final actions taken. These agenda items were simply too vague to provide the public with advance notice of the Board' s disbursement of County funds towards transportation service and a construction project. Accordingly, this office concludes that the Board did not provide sufficient notice under section 2. 02( c) of OMA with respect to those three agenda items.

To remedy these violations, this office requests that the Board reconsider and revote on the two matters for which it failed to provide sufficient advance notice after posting an agenda that adequately informs the public of the general nature of each final action.

toles County Board, Regular Meeting, April 11, 2017, Minutes 3482, 3550.

The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. This letter serves to close this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at ( 217) 785- 7438 or at the Springfield address on the first page of this letter.

Very truly yours, R. BOGGS Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 47357 o 202a notice improper 202c notice proper improper co