Village of Burr Ridge did not violate OMA by offering reasonable times for trustee to review closed session recordings

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 Mayor Grasso:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 3.5(e) of the Open Meetings Act OMA) ( 5 ILCS 120/ 3.5(e) ( West 2022)). 1 On October 9, 2020, who was then a trustee for the Village of Burr Ridge, submitted a Request for Review to this office alleging that the Village of Burr Ridge Village) Board of Trustees ( Board) violated OMA by refusing his request to listen to the recordings of certain closed sessions prior to the Board's October 12, 2020, meeting, in which the Board was expected vote on employment matters that were likely discussed in these closed sessions.2 also alleged that Board's refusal to provide him access to listen to the closed On October 29, 2020, the Village' s attorney, Mr. Michael K. Durkin, provided a response on the Board's behalf, which included affidavits from Mr. Gary Grasso, the Village Mayor, and Mr. Evan Walter, the Village' s Assistant Administrator and Deputy Clerk, as well as a variety of e-mail correspondence.3 Subsequently, the Public Access Bureau forwarded the Board' s written response to He did not reply.

Section 2.06(e) of OMA (5 ILCS 120/2.06(e) (West 2018)) provides in pertinent part:

Access to verbatim recordings shall be provided to duly elected officials or appointed officials filling a vacancy of an elected office in a public body, and access shall be granted in the public body' s main office or official storage location, in the presence of a records secretary, an administrative official of the public body, or any elected official of the public body. No verbatim recordings shall be recorded or removed from the public body' s main office or official storage location, except by vote of the public body or by court order.

The plain language of section 2.06(e) of OMA allows elected members, or appointed members filling a vacancy of an elected office, to review verbatim recordings at specific locations in the presence of an elected official of the public body or certain other personnel. However, section 2.06(e) does not address the specific timing of access by a Board member, nor does it set forth a specific procedure for requesting access. In addition, section 2.06(e) does not require a public body to make each of the listed individuals available for oversight, nor does it require that a trustee be allowed to pick and choose which individual will provide oversight. Under section 2.06(e), arrangements must be made to accommodate the schedules of the person seeking access and the official that must be present. " Thus, section The Public Access Bureau has reviewed the materials and the Board provided to this office. The materials submitted by the Board indicate that because the Village's senior staff had become apprehensive about interacting with due to past conflicts, the Mayor directed senior staff that should communicate only with the Mayor whenever he required information to perform his public duties. That directive was communicated via e- mail to the other trustees, including on January 20, 2020, which is before the dispute at issue in this matter arose.

On September 30, 2020, sent correspondence to the Assistant Administrator, using his personal e-mail address, stating that he wished to review the closed session recordings from the last three closed sessions, and asked that the recordings be prepared so he could come and listen next week. The Assistant Administrator responded that should send any requests to his work e-mail address. On Wednesday, October 7, 2020, at 6:54 a.m., e-mailed the Assistant Administrator, using both his personal and work e-mail addresses, asking " Are the recordings ready yet?" 4 That same day at 7:54 a.m. Mayor Grasso responded:

Closed sessions recordings cannot be copied or remove[d] from the Village' s main office. An elected official or administrative officer must be present. I will be present for the Village at the Village Hall if you want to listen to them. I'm available October 13 or 14 next week between 10am and Noon or 2:00pm to 4:00 pm. Choose one of those dates and time.[5]

and the Mayor continued their e-mail correspondence that morning without scheduling a mutually convenient time for to listen to the recordings. The Board's response to this office stated that at approximately 10:45 a.m. on October 7, 2020, appeared at Village Hall where the Assistant Administrator advised him that he needed to interact with the Mayor. Because rang a bell located at the front counter for several minutes and would not leave after the Assistant Administrator spoke with him, the Assistant Administrator called the After the October 12, 2020, meeting, and the Mayor continued to communicate to find a convenient time for to listen to the recordings, and on October 14, 2020, agreed that would come to Village Hall in the morning of October 15, 2020, to listen to the recordings. The Mayor asked to appear at 9:00 a.m. because he was only available until 10:30 a.m. and listening to the recordings would take about 90 minutes. did not agree to that time, saying that he would be there sometime in the morning. arrived at Village Hall on October 15, 2020, at 11:20 a.m. but was not allowed access to the recordings because the mayor was no longer present. The Mayor also informed that he could meet him at Village Hall to listen to the recordings at specific times on October 21, 23, 26, and October 27, 2020.

In summary, on January 20, 2020, the Mayor informed to communicate with him to obtain information from the Village. The Mayor, as an elected official, is one of the individuals allowed to be present when a trustee listens to a closed session recording. Instead of contacting the Mayor, on September 30, 2020, sent correspondence to the Assistant Administrator at his personal e-mail address. Not until October 7, 2020, did communicate with the Mayor regarding his request to listen to closed session recordings. On October 7, 2020, the Mayor offered a couple of dates for him to come to Village Hall, one of which was on Tuesday October 13, 2020, four business days after began corresponding with the Mayor. The Mayor also informed that if he made arrangements with another trustee, he could review the recordings in that trustee' s presence. In addition, the Mayor had offered seven different dates for him to come and listen to the recordings. While none of the proffered times was before the October 12, 2020, meeting, the attempt to schedule a mutually convenient time was neither a refusal nor a delay so unreasonable that it effectively constituted a denial to listen to the recordings. Accordingly, given the specific circumstances present in this matter, this office is unable to conclude that the Board violated section 2.06(e) of OMA.

Very truly yours, EDIE STEINBERG Senior Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 65149 o 206e proper mun cc: Via electronic mail Mr. Michael K. Durkin Storino, Ramello & Durkin 9501 West Devon Avenue, Suite 800 Rosemont, Illinois 60018 mdurkin@srd- law.com