A member of the public
submitted a request for review to the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access
Counselor (PAC), claiming that a majority of a quorum of a county board held an
improper “meeting” in violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) when it discussed public business at an informational event hosted by a private energy company.
In its 11th binding opinion of 2025, the PAC concluded that a county board
violated OMA by holding an improper private meeting in violation of Section
1.02 of the OMA. PAC
Op. 25-011.
In this case, the board did
not dispute that a majority of a quorum of the board attended the event.
However, the board argued that the event was an informational presentation by a
private energy company to discuss a proposed renewable energy project, and not a
“meeting” where a majority of the quorum of the board discussed public
business. The PAC disagreed, finding that board members engaged in a question
and answer session with energy company’s representatives about their proposed
operations in the county, which pertained to county business since the
discussions centered around business or community interests impacting the
county.
The board also argued that
the event was not a meeting because there were no specific items concerning the
energy company pending before the board. While the board did not reach an
accord on any specific matter at the time of the event, the PAC determined that
the event was nonetheless a meeting subject to OMA’s requirements, because a
majority of a quorum of board members engaged in the collective inquiry phase
of deliberations by gathering and exchanging information concerning the
renewable energy project in anticipation of possibly taking future action.
This is a good reminder to members of public bodies that a meeting could be triggered even in informal settings where a majority of a quorum of the public body discusses public business.
Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink