A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council discussed bidding processes in a closed session, which should have been public. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's Office reviewed the matter and concluded that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the exception they cited. This means the Council failed to follow the law's requirement that public business be conducted openly.
Legal question
Whether the Pekin City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing authorization for a bidding process during a closed session.
Holding
The Pekin City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the cited exception.
Summary
A requester alleged that the Pekin City Council improperly discussed authorization for a bidding process during a closed session. The PAC determined that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters outside the scope of the cited closed session exception.
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.
Via electronic mail Ms. Sue E. McMillan City Clerk 111 South Capitol Street Pekin, Illinois 61554 [email protected] RE: OMA Request for Review-2018 PAC 51599
Notes from the original PDF (1)
I Dearµ and Ms. McMillan: This determination is issued pursuant to section 3.5(e) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (5 ILCS 120/3.5(e) (West 2016)). For the reasons explained below, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the Pekin City Council (Council) violated OMA during its January 9, 2017, meeting by discussing certain matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the cited exception to the general requirement that public bodies conduct business openly. ' BACKGROUND On February I, 2018, this office received Request for Review alleging that on an unknown date, the Council violated OMA by dis¶orization for a bidding process during a closed session. To support his allegation, -cited a January 31, 2018, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response by the City of Pekin (City) referencing a closed session, the minutes of which were responsive to request for documentation showing that "the Council had given [the city manager] authorization to buy I I