O'Fallon Township High School Education Committee did not violate OMA over restaurant meeting notice

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 Mr. Fridge and Dr. Benway:

As an initial matter, Mr. Fridge made a wide variety of allegations in his submission that do not concern the requirements of OMA. These allegations pertain to matters such as furniture expenses, the alleged exposure of personal information during the meetings, the taking of minutes by a person other than the Board' s Clerk, and the purchasing of meals for Board members. The Public Access Counselor' s authority to resolve disputes, in contrast, is limited to alleged violations of OMA and the Freedom of Information Act ( 5 ILCS 140/ 1 et seq. West 2020)). See 15 ILCS 205/ 7( c)( 3) ( West 2020). Accordingly, this determination letter addresses only the OMA allegations Mr. Fridge properly raised: that the Committee provided insufficient notice for the " Conversations Over Coffee" meetings, and held the meetings in a place that was not convenient and open to the public.

Meeting Notice The May 9, 2022, and December 7, 2022, " Conversations over Coffee" meetings were special meetings of the Committee, as opposed to regular meetings. For special meetings, a public body must give notice by posting the agenda at its principal office at least 48 hours in posted to BoardDocs and at the District Office at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.l31 Dr. Benway added that " an email is also sent via the District' s automatic notification system to all employees, parents, guardians, and students, encouraging them to participate in Conversations Over Coffee. i4 In his reply, Mr. Fridge claimed that the BoardDocs site is confusing in how it presents information, but did not set forth evidence indicating that the Committee failed to timely post notice of the meetings at the District offices.

Having reviewed the information submitted by both parties, the Committee demonstrated that it posted sufficient notice of its May 9, 2022, and December 7, 2022, Conversations Over Coffee" meetings by posting the agenda at OTHS' s principal office. Therefore, the Committee did not violate OMA in connection with notice for the meetings.

rel. Badke v. Village Board of Greendale, 173 Wis. 2d 553, 579, 494 N.W.2d 408, 418 ( Wis. 1993)).

In denying that the " Conversations Over Coffee" meetings were held in an inconvenient manner, Dr. Benway asserted:

OTHS has working relationships with the chosen venues where Conversations Over Coffee have been held. No purchases are required to attend the meeting. The venue is a public restaurant and meets accessibility standards and codes as are required for guests. Members of the public attending the Conversations Over Coffee event at the restaurant are free to come and go throughout the meeting as they desire. If any restaurant or venue was ( a) not accessible, ( b) did not have the space to accommodate attendees, or c) required a purchase, the venue would not be used by the District to hold these community events. I51 In his reply, Mr. Fridge argued that it was improper for the Committee to choose its meeting venue based on the anticipated attendance. However, ensuring that a meeting is open and convenient necessarily involves anticipating the number of attendees and making arrangements accordingly, and there is no indication that the venue was inadequate to accommodate all interested members of the public at either meeting. Mr. Fridge also maintained that because the restaurant is a private business, it could refuse service to anyone and thus the Committee did not have sufficient control over the meeting space. Yet, this office did not receive information at odds with Dr. Benway' s assertion that OTHS has an established relationship with the restaurant that allowed the Committee to hold the meetings on its own terms.

Company does not have the same deterrent effect as holding a meeting in a private residence, as a restaurant is a public accommodation and thus subject to protective laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. While there may be instances in which holding a meeting in a restaurant is not convenient and open to the public, the facts do not reflect that holding the " Conversations Over Coffee" meetings in this manner under the particular circumstances here was inappropriate. Similarly, the latter binding opinion is inapplicable because in that matter the meeting was held 26 miles from the public body' s standard meeting location, whereas here the restaurant is less than three miles from OTHS. Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 13- 014, at 4. This office received no evidence suggesting that any members of the public were deterred from attending the Conversations Over Coffee" meetings as a result of the meeting location.

For the reasons explained above, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the Committee did not violate OMA in connection with its May 9, 2022, and December 7, 2022, Conversations Over Coffee" meetings.

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 joshua.jones@ilag. gov. This letter serves to close this file.

Very truly yours,