OMADetermination Letter (non-binding)Closed no further actionMeeting Notices & Agendas

PAC closes Palatine Park District meeting notice review after requester files lawsuit

The requester alleged the Board of Park Commissioners took final action on an item not sufficiently noticed on the meeting agenda.

Date issued: July 10, 2024
Request number(s): 82010
Public body: Palatine Park District
Statute(s): 5 ILCS 120/3.5(f)
Outcome: Closed due to concurrent litigation

Plain-language summary

A citizen complained that a park district board voted on an item that wasn't properly listed on their meeting agenda. However, because the citizen also filed a lawsuit against the board over the same issue, the Attorney General's office is legally required to stop its investigation. The PAC closed the file without making a decision on whether the law was broken.

Legal question

Does the filing of a lawsuit regarding an alleged OMA violation require the Public Access Counselor to cease its review of a pending Request for Review?

Holding

The PAC will take no further action because the requester initiated litigation regarding the same alleged violation, as required by 5 ILCS 120/3.5(f).

Summary

The requester alleged that the Palatine Park District Board of Park Commissioners took final action at a meeting without sufficient agenda notice. The PAC closed the matter because the requester filed a concurrent lawsuit regarding the same alleged OMA violation.

meeting agendalitigationfinal actionpark district

Reading view (358 words)

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. Vasselli and Mr. Paine:

This letter is issued pursuant to section 3.5(f) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) 5 ILCS 120/3.5(f) (West 2022)). For the reasons explained below, the Public Access Bureau will take no further action with respect to the above- referenced Request for Review.

On July 1, 2024, Mr. James M. Vasselli submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Bureau on behalf of his client, alleging that the Palatine Park District (Park District) Board of Park Commissioners ( Board) improperly took final action at its May 13, 2024, meeting without having provided sufficient advance notice on the agenda. Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Andrew S. Paine informed the Public Access Bureau by e-mail that he and his firm represent the Park District and that Mr. Vasselli filed suit against the Board concerning the same allegations under section 3(a) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 3(a) ( West 2022)).

Section 3.5(f) of OMA provides:

If the requester files suit under Section 3 with respect to the same alleged violation that is the subject of a pending request for Because Mr. Vasselli is filing suit under section 3(a) of OMA, section 3.5(f) of OMA precludes the Public Access Counselor from taking further action with respect to this matter.

Accordingly, this letter serves to close this matter. If you have questions, please contact me at c.lucentemccullough@ilag. gov.

Very truly yours, CHRISTINA LUCENTE- MCCULLOUGH Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 82010 o ls pkd cc: Via electronic mail The Honorable Terry Ruff Board President, Board of Park Commissioners Palatine Park District 250 East Wood Street Palatine, Illinois 60067 [email protected]