Decatur School Board did not violate OMA by using overflow room for crowded meeting

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. Christensen:

DETERMINATION

Section 1 of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 1 et seq. ( West 2018)) provides that " it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." Section 1 of OMA further. provides that members of the public have " the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way." This office construed Mr. Johnson' s Request for Review as alleging a violation of section 2. 01 of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2. 01 ( West 2018)), which provides that "[ a] ll meetings required by this Act to be public shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient and open to the public." This provision " requires a venue that is not only 'open,' but convenient,' to the public." Gerwin v. Livingston County Board, 345 Ill. App. 3d 352, 359 ( 4th Dist. 2003).

In addressing the meaning of "convenient" for purposes of section 2. 01 of OMA, the Gerwin court stated that "[ a] meeting can be open in the sense that no one is prohibited from attending it,' but it can be held in such an ill- suited, unaccommodating, unadvantageous place that asserted that she had contacted the District on February 19, 2020, about moving the location of the February 25, 2020, meeting to a larger space because more peoplemight have attended the meeting than could have been accommodated in the board room. She also alleged that another person had contacted the District about ensuring adequate seating at the meeting for people with disabilities. stated that the Board had declined the request for a change of meeting location. asserted that the February 25, 2020, meeting was inconvenient because individuals attending the meeting in the conference room had to be summoned from the third floor to participate in public comment. further asserted that the meeting was inconvenient because individuals standing in the hallway were not provided seating. Lastly, alleged that the Board had alternative locations to hold the meeting that would have accommodated more people. She speculated that the Board may have. chosen to hold the meeting in the board room to discourage increased participation by members of the Decatur Federation of Teaching Assistants whose contract was being negotiated at that time;

r.. The Board' s response asserted that every person who wished to sit was provided: a seat in either the board room or the conference room on the third floor. The Board stated that every attendee who wished to speak at the meeting was provided an opportunity, and that , individuals seated in the conference room who wished to speak were escorted to the board room to address the Board. The Board further argued that the inconvenience of a person seated in the conference room going downstairs to provide public comment was minimal and did not constitute a violation of OMA.

This office has reviewed the materials submitted by the parties, including pictures of the meeting room and a video recording of the open session portion of the February 25, 2020, meeting. This office' s review of the video of the meeting indicated that the board room was at capacity and some individuals walked from the conference room upstairs to the board room to address the Board. The video also shows that three individuals who addressed the Board complained about the Board' s choice of location for the meeting, the lack of seating for all who wished to attend in the room where, the meeting was held, and the accessibility of the meeting room for individuals in the third floor conference room who wished to speak. and the Board agree that the Board was informed before the meeting of the potential for an unusually large turnout at the meeting. However, the court in Gerwin made clear that a public body is required to provide reasonable access under the circumstances. The Board took reasonable steps to provide access for the unusually large crowd by nearly doubling the amount of seating for attendees, reserving accessible seating for the disabled, and providing an overflow room for individuals to observe a live stream video of the meeting. The available information indicates that seating was provided for all attendees, but some attendees choose to stand outside the board allow speakers to walk from the conference room to the board room to address the Board, there is no indication that any individual who wished to observe the meeting and address the Board was unable to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board did not violate OMA. This office encourages the Board to continue to monitor public attendance at its meetings and be mindful of its obligation to make its meetings reasonably accessible to the public.

The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Springfield address on the first page of this letter, [email protected]. il.us, or (217) 782- 9054. This letter serves to close this file.

Very truly yours,