Village of Dolton meeting location complaint closed due to insufficient evidence

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. Freeman:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 3.5(e) of the Open Meetings Act OMA) (5 ILCS 120/3.5(e) (West 2020)). For the reasons explained below, the Public Access Bureau will take no further action in this matter.

In your Request for Review, you alleged that the Village of Dolton ( Village) Board of Trustees (Board) violated OMA in connection with its April 24, 2023, special meeting. Specifically, you alleged that the Board violated section 2.01 of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2.01 (West 2020)) by holding its meeting at the Dolton Park District's Lester Long Building, a location that is not owned or leased by the Village and that you allege is not convenient.

Section 3.5(a) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/3.5(a) ( West 2020)) provides that "[ a] person who believes that a violation of this Act by a public body has occurred may file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor established in the Office of the Attorney General[.] * * The request for review * * * must include a summary of the facts supporting the allegation[]" that the public body violated OMA. (Emphasis added.)

Section 2.01 of OMA provides, in pertinent part, that "[ a]ll meetings required by the] Act to be public shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient and open to the public." Section 2.01 further provides, in pertinent part: " Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a quorum of members of a public body must be physically present at the location of an open meeting." This physical quorum requirement contains an exception for certain public bodies with large geographic jurisdiction, as long as the meeting " is held simultaneously at one of its offices and one or more other locations in a public building." (Emphasis added.) It is in this context that section 2.01 defines " public buildings," and this is the only provision in OMA requiring a meeting to be held in a public building. Section 2.01 does not require that meetings under any other circumstances are held in public buildings.

OMA does not define what is "convenient." Undefined statutory terms must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Exelon Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, 234 Ill. 2d 266, 275 2009) ( finding that where a statute fails to specifically define a word, a court may use a dictionary to determine the word's plain and ordinary meaning). "'Convenient' means 'suited to a personal comfort or to easy performance' or 'affording accommodation or advantage.'" Gerwin v. Livingston Co. Board, 345 Ill. App. 3d 352, 361 (4th Dist. 2003) (quoting Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 252 ( 10th ed. 2000)). 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 members of the public, as a practical matter, would be deterred from attending it." Gerwin, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 361. The court construed section 2.01 as requiring "not 'absolute accessibility' but 'reasonable accessibility.'" Gerwin, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 362, quoting State ex rel. Badke v. Village Board of the Village of Greendale, 173 Wis. 2d 553, 579, 494 N.W.2d 408, 418 (Wis. 1993).

The Board held its April 24, 2023, special meeting at the Lester Long Field House, a location owned by the Dolton Park District, another public body, less than one mile from Village Hall.1 Although you allege that this location is less familiar to the public than the Board' s usual meeting location at Village Hall, and therefore less convenient, this office has not received information from which it could conclude that anyone could not attend or was actually deterred from attending the meeting due to its location.

Because you have not provided a summary of facts supporting the allegation that the Board violated OMA, this office has determined that no further action is warranted in this matter. This file is closed. If you have questions, you may contact me at ( 773) 590- 7878 or [email protected].

Very truly yours, BENJAMIN J. SILVER Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 76467 o no fi war mun