Village of Bismarck Planning Commission violated OMA by excluding public from 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 Mr. Lawlyes:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 3.5(e) of the Open Meetings Act OMA) ( 5 ILCS 120/ 3.5(e) ( West 2022)). For the reasons that follow, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the Village of Bismarck (Village) Planning Commission (Commission) violated OMA in connection with its September 20, 2022, meeting.

BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2022, the Public Access Bureau received Request for Review alleging that the Commission did not allow the public to attend a portion of its September 20, 2022, meeting following a public hearing on a zoning reapplication. included a copy of the meeting minutes, which stated that the Commission "held a separate meeting as a commission committee to discuss" following public participation. 1

DETERMINATION

It is the " public policy of this State that its citizens shall be 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 2022). " 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 (1989).

Section 2(a) of OMA2 provides, in relevant part, that "[ a]ll meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless excepted in subsection ( c) and closed in accordance with Section 2a." Section 2.01 of OMA3 further provides, in relevant part, 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[.]"

In its response to this office, the Commission stated that, although its September 20, 2022, meeting was scheduled to occur at the Village Office, the public comment portion of the meeting was moved to a larger location to accommodate a large crowd. The Commission recounted, however, that it returned to the Village Office following public participation. The Commission also recounted that "[t]he public was allowed to return to the Village Office also, but most did not do so. The Village Office doors remained open and the public was not excluded."4 The Commission further argued that it did not hold a separate meeting, and that its draft minutes were incorrect in stating that it did so.

In her reply, recounted that the public was told to leave following public participation so that the Commission could discuss the rezoning request at issue and that the public was not told that the Commission would be returning to the Village Office to continue the meeting. She further noted that she stood with several people outside the office and did not see the Commission return to the office. Additionally, she questioned the need to return to the Village Office when the new space could better accommodate the large crowd.

Although the Commission argued in its response that its September 20, 2022, meeting remained open to the public following public participation, it did not sufficiently explain how the Commission "indicated they would return to the Village Office * * * to continue their meeting" 5 and how it conveyed to the crowd that members of the public could join this open meeting. The draft minutes, which are the only minutes this office has received, state that it held a " separate meeting" to weigh the evidence and testimony it received during public participation. In light of description of the events and personal attendance at the meeting, the Commission' s response did not demonstrate that its meeting remained open to the public. Under these circumstances, this office concludes that the Commission violated section 2(a) of OMA by effectively restricting the public from attending a portion of its September 20, 2022, meeting.

While no remedial action is available under these circumstances, this office reminds the Commission of its obligation to hold meetings that are open to the public. The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. This file is closed. If you have any questions, please contact me at benjamin. silver@ilag. gov or (773) 590- 7878.

Very truly yours, BENJAMIN J. SILVER Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 74390 o 2a improper mun