Will Co. (ECWd) –
Too little, too late.
When former Attorney General Lisa Madigan was in office, we routinely saw the Public Access Counselor’s (PAC) office issue clear language determinations regarding the Open Meetings Act (OMA), and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) violations.
The same cannot be said for the PAC under Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
Clear language determinations leave no room for assumptions.
Public Body X violated section xyz of the OMA or FOIA. Period. Full stop.
In June of 2019, we attended the Joliet Township meeting and realized from the open discussion of the meeting there were grounds for a request for review for improper discussions in closed session. We wrote about it in this article.
We requested the closed session recording because discussions were inappropriate for a closed session. We requested the PAC review the matter for failure to record ALL of the closed session and the board’s improper release of the recordings without a vote as required.
Almost 6 years after our request for review, the PAC issues a closing letter without making a clear determination that a violation took place regarding the unauthorized release of the recording. Instead, they muddy the waters with an educational statement for the Township.
“In the future, the Board should make a determination on whether a verbatim recording no longer needs confidential treatment prior to it being released to the public.”
In footnote 1, they offer guidance as the justification for the letter.
“1 In issuing this letter, we recognize that it is coming long after the meetings in question occurred. Because the Request for Review raises a legal question that may reoccur, however, this letter is intended to provide guidance to the requester and public body.”
Where is the answer to the legal question on what happened? Did they violate 2.06(e) or not? Is it so difficult to say, based on the facts, that Joliet Township violated 2.06(e) of the Open Meetings Act? Why offer guidance for future legal questions on the matter instead of offering a clear determination of what did happen?
I asked the PAC, “So there is no confusion, this letter is confirming the public body violated 2.06(e) of the Open Meetings Act?”
Rather than simply saying yes:
Dear Mr. Allen:
The letter speaks for itself. (emphasis added)
Very truly,
Ms. Edie Steinberg
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Public Access Bureau
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
South LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60603
312-814-5201
[email protected]
On the subject of an improper discussion in closed session, they had no problem making a clear determination in the Township’s favor, however, the referenced “affidavit” to support their decision was never provided to me. Had it been, we could have refuted the claim, considering, at the time, we had information that would refute the claim that no further discussion took place. Why did the AG PAC not provide the affidavit?
The clear determination on the alleged 2.06(a) violation:
“Therefore, there is no basis for this office to conclude that the Board violated section 2.06(a) of OMA.”
What recourse does the public have when the AG PAC takes almost 6 years to close out a request for review rather than within the 60 days outlined in 5 ILCS 120/3.5(e)? Is it time for the law to be amended and establish penalties against the PAC for such a gross violation of the OMA?
While some public bodies and citizens might learn from the information in this case, such a delay in making determinations makes the matter moot since none of those people are even in office anymore and got away with violating the law. A law that specifically indicates violations like this are Class C Misdemeanors.
A copy of the PAC letter can be downloaded at this link or viewed below.
61169 o 206a proper 206e improper mun
No Comments