PAC Issues Binding Decision Regarding “Open and Convenient” Meeting Requirement

The Illinois Public Access Counselor (PAC) issued its tenth binding opinion of the year, finding the Village of Dolton Board of Trustees violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by failing to make two Board meetings convenient and open to the public. The PAC addressed the OMA’s “open and convenient” meeting requirement, holding that the OMA obligated the Village to implement measures to better accommodate public access to its Board meetings.

At issue were two Board meetings the Village held in June and July 2024. Over the past several months, there has been growing attendance at Village Board meetings as a result of controversy around the Mayor and her alleged misuse of public funds, among other concerns. As attendance at Board meetings rose due to increased public interest, community members began experiencing access issues, culminating in multiple requests for review to the PAC. The requests for review cited a variety of issues that prevented individuals from attending Board meetings, including limited seating, inadequate space in the meeting room, limited parking availability, traffic barricades, and obstacles for individuals with disabilities, among other issues. In response, the Board cited safety concerns as a result of recent community outbursts at Board meetings, necessitating street closures, parking barricades, and increased police presence during Board meetings.

In reaching its decision, the PAC analyzed Section 2.01 of the OMA, which requires that all meetings subject to the OMA “be held at specified times and places which are convenient and open to the public.” The PAC reasoned that the Village Board had ample notice that its regular meeting space would be insufficient to reasonably accommodate the public. First, the Board had ample notice of the significant public interest in Board meeting attendance due to the public nature of the controversies involving the Board and Village administration. The Board found it necessary to adjourn its April 2024 meeting early because the meeting room lacked sufficient space to accommodate members of the public. At the May 2024 meeting, members of the public were forced to wait outside, as the meeting room was full. In advance of the June 2024 meeting, news media outlets reported that the Board may take action to override the Mayor’s veto of the Board’s vote to hire an independent investigator to investigate her alleged misconduct—a topic of great public interest. Following the June 2024 meeting, the Board also received a number of PAC requests for review alleging concerns with meeting accessibility. Based on the foregoing, the PAC determined that the Board could have reasonably concluded that there would be significant public interest in the topics discussed at the June and July 2024 Board meetings.

While the PAC reasoned that the OMA does not require the Board to ensure every individual who attends a meeting is able to “do so in full comfort,” the PAC held that the OMA does require public bodies to implement measures to better accommodate the public more effectively than the Village Board did at the two meetings at issue. Notably, the Board failed to take any action to address the needs of the public, such as moving the meeting to a larger meeting room, offering standing room or another room with remote meeting access for overflow attendees, or otherwise attempting to make the meeting reasonably accessible to the public. Accordingly, the PAC held that the Board violated the OMA’s “convenient and open” meeting requirement.

The PAC directed the Board to take measures to ensure all future meetings comply with the OMA by remaining convenient and open to the public. The PAC specifically directed the Board to hold future meetings at a location with sufficient space to be reasonably accessible for attendees. Additionally, the PAC emphasized that while a public body may take appropriate steps to assure the safety of members of the public, it may not implement “unnecessary safety measures” including closing streets, barricading parking, and establishing an excessive police presence. Such measures, the PAC reasoned, improperly hinder the public’s ability to attend meetings and create a hostile environment that may jeopardize public attendance.

This binding decision serves as a reminder that as controversial matters arise with significant public interest, the public body should take reasonable steps to accommodate the public to comply with the OMA. This may even include moving the site of the meeting to a larger venue. If you have any questions regarding this decision or the OMA generally, please reach out to one of the authors of this post or any Franczek attorney.