5 ILCS 120/2(c)(4)

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(4)

Section 2(c)(4) permits a public body acting in a quasi-adjudicative capacity to meet in closed session to consider evidence or testimony presented to it. The question in these matters is whether the closed discussion involved such material submitted for adjudicative consideration, rather than general policy, advice, or reports.

In these decisions, the PAC found violations where the City of Chicago Board of Ethics discussed an advisory opinion, a query report, and policy issues in closed session under sections 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(4). It concluded those topics did not fall within personnel matters or evidence or testimony. By contrast, it found no violation where the Evanston Board of Ethics used section 2(c)(4) to discuss its jurisdiction over ethics complaints, treating the complaints and a complainant's argument as evidence or testimony.

At a glance: 4 documents from 2020 to 2026(0 binding opinions, 4 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1) (Employee/contractor appointment, discipline, or performance) (3); 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(15) (Professional ethics/performance review by a licensing advisory body) (1); 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(21) (Reviewing minutes of a lawfully closed meeting) (1).

Recurring issues

• Whether discussing an advisory opinion in closed session qualifies as considering evidence or testimony under section 2(c)(4). (Closed-session discussion of an advisory opinion)
• Whether discussing a query report in closed session falls under section 2(c)(1) or section 2(c)(4). (A board of ethics' closed-session discussion of a query report)
• Whether policy issues discussed in closed session were beyond the scope of the cited exceptions including section 2(c)(4). (Closed-session discussion of financial statements, transit cards, and newsletters)
• Whether considering jurisdiction over ethics complaints, including the complaints and a complainant's argument, counts as evidence or testimony. (Closed-session discussion of ethics complaint jurisdiction)

Practical points

• A public body that cites section 2(c)(4) kept its closed discussion within evidence or testimony presented for quasi-adjudicative consideration in the no-violation decision.
• Meeting recordings and records were reviewed to decide whether the closed discussion fit the cited exception.
• Discussion of advisory opinions, query reports, and policy issues did not fit the exception in these violation decisions.

Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.