PAC Issues Decision Finding that Leadership Team Does Not Constitute a Public Body Subject to the OMA

The PAC recently issued a non-binding opinion, finding a school district Board President and Vice President did not violate the OMA when they regularly met with the Superintendent, members of the school district’s administrative team, and, at times, a teacher’s union representative.

At issue was a Request for Review alleging that the Board President’s and Vice President’s frequent scheduled meetings with the Superintendent, which at times included other administrators, constituted a committee, or subsidiary body, of the School District’s Board of Education and was, therefore, subject to the OMA. The meetings, however, were never open to the public and did not follow other OMA requirements, such as publishing notice of the meetings, taking minutes, or other OMA obligations for public bodies. The complaint specifically alleged that the Board’s President and Vice President, which the PAC referred to as the “Leadership Team” throughout the opinion, constituted a “public body,” thus making their meetings subject to the requirements of the OMA. The PAC disagreed.

Generally, the OMA applies to a majority of a quorum of school board members when discussing public business contemporaneously, i.e. three or more school board members. In addition, the OMA applies if the group meeting constitutes a committee or subsidiary body of the school board. Here, since only two members were part of the Leadership Team, the Board President and Vice President, the question was whether the group was a committee of the Board.

In determining whether the Leadership Team constituted a committee subject to the OMA, the PAC considered factors Illinois courts have examined in analyzing whether a group constitutes an advisory or subsidiary body of a public body subjecting it to the OMA. These factors include (i) who appoints the members of the group; (ii) the formality of their appointment; (iii) whether members are paid for their participation; (iv) the group’s assigned duties; (v) whether the group is subject to government control or remains accountable to a public body; (vi) whether the entity has a budget; (viii) where the entity falls within the larger public body; and (ix) the impact of the entity’s decisions or recommendations. A group that meets most of these factors is a public body subject to the OMA.

After examining these factors in the context of the Leadership Team, the PAC concluded that the group, although it met frequently and discussed public business, did not meet the requirements of a public body. It was not a subsidiary body of the Board. Instead, the PAC determined that the Board President and Vice President of their own accord, not the Board’s, initiated the group for the purpose of meeting informally with the Superintendent, District administrators, and the teachers’ union representatives. Further, the group never made formal recommendations to the Board as a whole with significant and binding impact. Since the Leadership Team did not qualify as a committee or advisory body of the Board, the meetings did not require compliance with the OMA and no violation occurred.

Further supporting its decision, the PAC considered that the Leadership Team did not have bylaws nor formal deliberative or investigative functions. Additionally, the PAC found no evidence that the Board held control over the group. The Board, not the Leadership Team, bears all decision-making power, retaining the final decision on any Board or District related matters. Most significantly, the PAC recognized that the Board did not create the Leadership Team as a public body and the Leadership Team is not a part of the formal structure of the Board. Therefore, the Leadership Team was not a public body subject to the OMA.

This decision highlights key factors that impact whether the OMA applies in the context of advisory or subsidiary bodies and committees. Determining if a group may be a public body subject to the OMA requires a detailed factual analysis. If you have any questions about this opinion or the OMA generally, please contact one of the authors of this post or any Franczek attorney.