Village of Lisle Board of Trustees did not violate OMA by destroying closed session recordings after approving minutes

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. Ertmoed:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 3. 5( e) of the Open Meetings Act OMA). l For the reasons explained below, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the Board of Trustees ( Board) of the Village of Lisle ( Village) did not violate OMA.

In her Request for Review, alleged that the Board violated section 2. 06(c) of OMA2 during its December 18, 2023, meeting when the Board voted to destroy its February 21, 2022, March 7, 2022, April 4, 2022, April 18, 2022, May 2, 2022, and May 16, 2022, closed session verbatim recordings before approving the minutes from those closed meetings.

On January 9, 2024, this office forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to the Board and asked it to respond in writing, specifically addressing whether the Board voted to approved. On January 23, 2024, the Board submitted, among other things, a written answer, a web link to view the Board' s January 8, 2024, meeting, 3 and a copy of the agenda for that meeting. On January 24, 2024, this office forwarded a copy of the Board's answer to she replied on January 25, 2024. On February 14, 2024, via e- mail with an Assistant Attorney General ( AAG) in the Public Access Bureau, the Village clarified certain aspects of its written answer.

DETERMINATION

It is the " public policy of this State that its citizens shall be given advance notice ofand 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 2.06( c) of OMA provides:

However, the Board' s response stated that it voted to approve the relevant closed session meeting minutes during the open session portion of its January 8, 2024, meeting, which is supported by the agenda and recording of that meeting. On February 14, 2024, the Village informed an AAG that the verbatim recordings were not destroyed until January 9, 2024.

replied to the Board's response, in pertinent part, by reiterating that the Board' s failure to first vote to approve the closed session minutes before approving the destruction of the verbatim recordings at issue was a violation of section 2. 06( c) of OMA, and she argued that the "[ a]pproval of the closed minutes after -the -fact is not permitted by statute as a method to authorize destruction of closed meeting records. i5 The plain language of section 2. 06( c), however, requires that prior to destruction of a closed session verbatim recording, a public body must vote to approve destruction of the recording and vote to approve the written minutes of that closed session. See Buonauro v. City ofBerwyn, No. 08- C- 6687 ( N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2011) (" OMA permit[ s] the destruction of [closed session verbatim] recordings without notification eighteen months after the completion of the recorded meeting, provided that the public body approves the destruction and adequate minutes of the meeting have been taken and approved."). Therefore, if a public body destroys the verbatim recording of a closed session before following the procedures set forth in both sections 2. 06( c)( 1) and 2. 06( c)( 2) of OMA, the destruction would violate section 2. 06( c).

Very truly yours, Senior Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 79408 o 206c proper mun