ECHO Joint Agreement Board did not violate OMA by removing employee 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. Hayden:

This determination letter is issued pursuant to section 3.5(e) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (5 ILCS 120/3.5(e) ( West 2022)).

In an e-mail to the Public Access Bureau on January 23, 2024, alleged he " went to an open public meeting" of the Exceptional Children Have Opportunities ECHO) Joint Agreement Executive Board of Directors ( Board) " and was kicked out by The Assistant [ Superintendent] Dr. Arresola and Superintendent Dr. Thomas." 1 In his Request for Review, received by this office on January 24, 2024, alleged that he attempted to attend the January 23, 2024, meeting, but was told he could not attend the meeting by Dr. Arresola because he was on paid administrative leave as an ECHO employee. alleged that he was improperly escorted out of the Board meeting, claiming he attended the meeting as a resident rather than an employee.

On February 8, 2024, the Public Access Bureau received the requested materials, absent a recording of the meeting and the minutes from the meeting, from the Board' s attorney. The Board' s attorney provided a complete version of its response for this office's confidential review and a non-confidential version suitable to forward to 2 That same day, this office forwarded a copy of the non-confidential response to he submitted two substantive replies that same day.

DETERMINATION

Section 1 of OMA (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. ( West 2022)) provides that " it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." Section 1 of OMA further provides that members of the public have " the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way." Section 2.01 of OMA (5 ILCS 120/2.01 (West 2022)) provides 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 non-confidential response to this office, the Board provided context about employment with ECHO; at the time of the January 23, 2024, meeting, he " was on a paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, including failure to disclose on his employment application that he was terminated from another school district for misconduct toward students." 3 The Board noted that "[ o]n January 10, 2024, he was notified in writing of the fact that he was being placed on administrative leave with pay during the investigation. Importantly, this written notice also informed that during the investigation he was not to appear on any ECHO Joint Agreement property unless otherwise notified." 4 The Board stated that when he arrived at the The Board's confidential response included additional context about the underlying circumstances of placement on administrative leave and made arguments for why was properly disallowed to attend the January 23, 2024, Board meeting.

In his first reply, argued:

I number one am a resident and taxpayer of Echo Joint agreement District. Secondly Illinois State Statute supersedes district laws or policies. I was attending the meeting as a resident of the district not as an employee. Also no classrooms are attached to the district office of Echo the School Pace itself sits on the other side of the building. I called the police because the Superintendent assaulted me by getting in my face and told me I am not to be at the meeting. I was escorted out by the Board President Dr. Evans from the meeting. In accordance with the Illinois Open Meetings act nothing in the law restricts me from attending a public meeting that is in accordance to the law. I am a duly paying tax member of this body. * * * I will ask this is not dismissed as my rights were violated as a citizen and taxpayer of the district.[ 8]

In his second reply, included the language of the policy section of the OMA applies to "public bodies" as defined by the statute. 10 Thus, OMA applies to the Board but not to ECHO employees, law enforcement, or others. The Public Access Counselor' s authority to resolve disputes is limited to alleged violations of OMA and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq. ( West 2022)). 15 ILCS 205/7(c)(3) West 2022). Neither OMA nor FOIA governs a school district' s ability to place an employee on administrative leave and/or bar the employee from the premises. Therefore, this office does not have the authority to overturn or limit the ECHO administration' s personnel decision as it relates to presence on ECHO property while placed on administrative leave for an investigation into matters pertaining to threats to student safety. See, for instance, Jones v. Bay Shore Union Free School District, 170 F. Supp. 3d 420, 435 (E.D.N.Y 2016) (" There is nothing in" New York's version of OMA (N.Y. Pub. Off. § 100 et seq.) " limiting a board's authority to restrict access to an individual for safety reasons, while still keeping the meeting open to the general public."). argument that he sought to attend the meeting as a local taxpayer rather than an employee is unavailing, because the capacity in which he intended to attend the meeting is irrelevant to the fact that he is a person whom the ECHO administration felt was necessary to keep off school property as part of a misconduct investigation. These are not circumstances in which was restricted from attending a meeting pertaining to him specifically, and there is no indication that the meeting was not otherwise accessible to the general public. Given that was removed from the January 23, 2024, meeting because of the administration' s disciplinary proceeding against him, rather than by the Board for a reason pertaining to OMA, this office concludes that the Board did not violate OMA in connection with the meeting.

Very truly yours, KATIE GOLDSMITH Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 79869 o no vio sd