Village of Hebron Board of Trustees did not violate OMA over Facebook comments

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. Smoron:

they occurred.

On May 5, 2025, the Board provided its written response. On May 9, 2025, this office forwarded a copy of the Board's written response to he replied on May 12, 2025.

DETERMINATION

It is " the public policy of this State that its citizens shall be given advance notice of and 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 ofthe 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).

For the requirements of OMA to apply, a gathering must constitute a " meeting" as defined by section 1. 02 ofOMA:

Mindham replied, " you have 3 trustees that are willing to hear his proposal so far. i5 Trustee Milarski also stated in response to the thread that included Trustee Stevens, " I would add, a petition of signatures, stating that it is wanted. Also check to see if other villages request insurance, inspections, rider limitations and a map of proposed driving areas. As much information you can get is best. I think the board would be interested in how other villages enforce golf cart ordinances. i6 In its response to this office, the Board argued that the comments of Trustees Milarski and Mindham were not made " for the purpose of discussing or deliberating public business amongst themselves. Instead, the posts by Trustees Milarski and Mindham were simply those of Village officials acknowledging [ for] their constituents that they, again, would be willing to listen to any such proposal." 7 The Board further argued that these communications were meant as acknowledgments to Village residents and that there is no deliberation of the advantages or disadvantages of such golf cart ordinance — simply expressions of willingness to listen. i8 The Board also included affidavits from each of its six trustees attesting that they did not engage in any additional communications on this subject matter. The affidavits from Trustees Milarski, Mindham, and Stevens also averred that the Facebook comments were " only intended to express my willingness to listen to my constituents and not to be a discussion or debate of Village business. i9 In his reply, argued that these communications were a discussion of public business, that a majority of a quorum participated, and that no public notice was provided.

ex rel. Difanis v. Barr, 83 Ill. 2d 191, 202 ( 1980). OMA " balance[ s] the right of the press and the people to view the deliberative and decision -making processes of government first- hand with the right of public officials to speak their minds freely and associate with whomever they choose." Barr, 83 Ill. 2d at 210. A gathering does not constitute a meeting for purposes of OMA when the members of the public body do not participate in examination or weighing ofreasons for or against a course of action, an exchange of facts preliminary to a decision, or an attempt to reach accord on a specific matter of public business. Nabhani v. Coglianese, 552 F. Supp. 657, 661 ( N. D. Ill. 1982). See also Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 38142, issued September 2, 2016, at 3 ( unable to conclude that a Trustee Workshop convened by the Village Clerk and attended by a majority of a quorum of members of the Board constituted a meeting without any evidence that the members " collectively engaged" in deliberative discussions of public business).

In this matter, the trustees' communications, while related to a potential matter of Board business, were mostly in response to and directed at constituents. Although the trustees did post messages on the same comment threads, those comments did not appear to include any interactive deliberations between the trustees. None of the trustees attempted to reach a consensus with each other or exchange facts for purposes of considering whether to pass a golf cart ordinance. Instead, the trustees' activity amounted to individually notifying constituents of their willingness to reconsider the subject of allowing golf carts on streets at a future time and recommending how constituents could present a proposal to the Board. Therefore, the Facebook activity did not constitute a " meeting" of the Board because the communications did not involve the three Board members interacting with each other to deliberate about public business. Accordingly, this office concludes that the messages posted by the Board members did not violate OMA.

Nevertheless, this office cautions the Board that participation in a thread on Facebook or other interactive media could lead to deliberative discussions ofpublic business that violate the Act. Before participating in discussion forums that involve other Board members, trustees should be mindful of the requirements of OMA and ensure that they refrain from interactive communications that involve at least a majority of a quorum of the members of the Board.

Very truly yours, BENJAMIN J. SILVER Supervising Attorney Public Access Bureau 86190 0 102 proper mun