City of Benld City Council violated OMA by taking final action on matter not on agenda

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. Verticchio:

DETERMINATION

The Open Meetings Act provides that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business, and that the intent of the Act is to assure that agency actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." Gosnell v. Hogan, 179 Ill. App. 3d 161, 171 ( 5th Dist. 1989).

Section 2. 02( c) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2. 02( c) ( West 2018)) provides, in pertinent part: " Any 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." The City Council' s response to this office did not dispute that the agenda for the May 18, 2020, meeting contained no item concerning the sale of police equipment; instead, it asserted that the City Council did not take final action to sell the equipment at that meeting. In particular, the City Council asserted that it had " authorized Mayor Kelly to negotiate with the City of Gillespie as to the sale of various police equipment that is no longer necessary for the City of Benld and to obtain assistance from the Chief of Police as to the fair market value of the equipment.i1 The City Council stated that although the minutes of the May 18, 2020, meeting had initially indicated that a sale of police property had been authorized, those minutes were corrected by the City Council at its June 15, 2020, meeting to reflect that the vote at the May 18, 2020, meeting was not final action on a sale. The draft minutes of the June 15, 2020, meeting provided by the City Council for this office' s review reflect that change. Those draft minutes also indicate that at the June 15, 2020, meeting, the City Council approved a motion to sell police property to the City of Gillespie for $7, 100. 00.

Final action" under OMA is interpreted as the public vote on a resolution or Gillespie who is providing us police services.i2 Another member made that motion and it was seconded. The clerk then restated the motion as: " Resolution to sell police equipment to Gillespiei3 and conducted a roll call vote, which resulted in the resolution being unanimously adopted. Although the vote taken by the City Council was to authorize the City to sell equipment at fair market value rather than to complete the sale, it was nonetheless final action on a resolution proposed at the meeting. We understand the City Council' s point that the May 18, 2020, vote was to authorize the process of selling the equipment, rather than finalizing the sale; however, the City Council chose to propose a resolution to that effect and take a public vote, thus taking a " final action." It is undisputed that the meeting agenda does not reference this resolution in any manner. Accordingly, this office concludes that the City Council violated section 2. 02( c) by approving a resolution authorizing a sale of police equipment at fair market value without providing advance notice of the general subject matter of that final action on the May 18, 2020, meeting agenda. Because the City Council subsequently took final action to sell the equipment at a fixed price after providing advance notice of that action on the June 15, 2020, meeting agenda, this office concludes that no further action is necessary to remedy this violation.