Shelby Co. (ECWd) –
We first exposed the questionable conduct by the board and the State’s Attorney in this article. Within that article, we stated, “We will update with a new article once the PAC has made a determination on the alleged OMA violation for the closed session meeting held by the county board and attended by legal counsel, Shelby County State’s Attorney Ruth Woolery. If they determine there was, in fact, a violation, that portion of the closed session recording would be subject to FOIA. We can only imagine what that recording is going to reveal on this matter.”
The Attorney General PAC issued its determination letter, and once again, the Shelby County Board has been found to have violated the Open Meetings Act. Most interesting is the fact that the State’s Attorney, Ruth Woolery, was front and center in the meeting in question, just like Nichole Kronke was when prior violations of the law were confirmed.
“Public Access Bureau concludes that the Board of Trustees (Board) of Shelby County violated OMA at its September 11, 2025, meeting by entering closed session under an exception that did not authorize its discussion.”
How is it that licensed lawyers who are State’s Attorneys in Shelby County, who are supposed to enforce the law, can’t seem to comprehend the Open Meetings Act and end up being a party to the violations? Both Nichole Kronke, former State’s Attorney, and Woolery, current State’s Attorney, were in the meetings when clear violations took place, and they sat silent when they should have been instructing their client not to commit a crime. For those not aware, violations of the OMA are class C misdemeanors, with the exception of the training requirements.
In the past, violations of closed sessions typically resulted in the applicable portion of a closed session recording being subject to FOIA, which is why we said in our prior article, “If they determine there was, in fact, a violation, that portion of the closed session recording would be subject to FOIA. We can only imagine what that recording is going to reveal on this matter.”
The reason that recording is important is to verify that the legality of going into closed session was raised by at least one board member during that session. Woolery informed the AG PAC that the recording was protected by the attorney-client privilege under a request for legal advice. It is our understanding from two different board members that the board did not request any legal advice on the matter, and the agenda item in question was placed on the agenda at Woolery’s request. When the legality of the agenda item (county board hiring a law firm) was raised in the closed session, we were told Woolery said she placed it on the agenda to inform the board as to what she was going to do. If that is true, then there was no request for legal advice as claimed by Woolery. The truth would be exposed if the recording were released; however, the AG PAC has indicated “disclosure of the verbatim recording would not be an appropriate remedy for the Board violating OMA by improperly entering closed session under section 2(c)(11) instead of section 2(c)(1). “ The AG PAC points to “Ill. Att’y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 87104, issued January 12, 2026“.
On the subject of legal advice, Woolery missed the mark set by case law when it comes to attorney-client privilege for a public body and we are surprised the AG PAC never addressed the case law on that point.
To assert the attorney-client privilege for a public body in Illinois, the public body must meet specific requirements and demonstrate the applicability of the privilege under the circumstances. The burden of proof lies with the public body asserting the privilege, and it must provide objective indicia that the privilege applies. Simply invoking the terms “attorney-client privilege” or “legal advice” is insufficient. Instead, the public body must show with reasonable specificity why the documents or communications fall within the claimed privilege. This can be achieved through affidavits that are detailed enough to allow adversarial testing or, preferably, through an in-camera review by the court, which serves as an impartial arbiter without risking public disclosure of the documents. Glynn v. Dep’t of Corr., 2023 IL App (1st) 211657, Ill. Educ. Ass’n v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 204 Ill. 2d 456, Day v. City of Chicago, 388 Ill. App. 3d 70.
We have requested a copy of this newly issued PAC determination letter to understand their reasoning, but one thing is clear: these rulings point out the need to clarify one specific portion of the Open Meetings Act. The OMA permits a public body to discuss the hiring of legal counsel in closed session, which we agree with. However, the county government is the ONLY local government public body that has no power to hire legal counsel. If the language in the OMA is going to imply that portion of the law applies to an agency that has no power to hire a private law firm, it’s clear the law needs to be amended because such a position is an absurdity.
We were pleased to see that not only did they confirm, just as we alleged, OMA was violated, but they also validated what we have said for years, county boards cannot hire private attorneys.
“whether or not to engage outside counsel to assist with a specialized area of the law to prevent future litigation certainly falls within a request for legal advice, even if the Board themselves cannot hire outside counsel“.
We urge the County Board to release the closed session recording so the public can know all the information regarding this law firm hiring by the State’s Attorney and what was really said during the closed session.
A copy of the AG APC determination letter can be viewed below or downloaded at this link.
AG PAC determination 1-29-26
