East Central Reporter

The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor (PAC) recently issued a letter in response to a case involving Joliet Township, ending a lengthy review process concerning potential violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA). This review began with a request filed almost six years ago regarding closed session activities during a June 2019 meeting.

During the meeting, improper discussions reportedly took place in a closed session, prompting a request for review and a check on the township's compliance with regulations requiring the recording of closed sessions and proper release procedures.

The PAC's letter, while addressing the matter, did not provide a definitive determination of a violation but instead offered guidance for future conduct. Specifically, it advised that, "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."

A footnote clarified the purpose of the letter, noting, "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."

This response prompted questions from the requester about whether Joliet Township had indeed violated section 2.06(e) of the OMA. The PAC reiterated the letter's statements without directly confirming a violation, responding that, "The letter speaks for itself."

In examining another issue related to improper discussions, the PAC found no basis to conclude that the Board violated section 2.06(a) of the OMA, though the requester noted that supporting affidavits had not been made available for review.

The delayed publication of the PAC's findings, coming long after the official OMA review process period, raises concerns about the efficacy of the current system. Discussions continue around possible legal reforms to address prolonged review timelines and the consequences of delayed determinations.

The case underscores the importance of timely and definitive determinations from oversight bodies to ensure accountability and compliance with legal statutes.