OMA section 2.05

OMA

5 ILCS 120/2.05. Section 2.05 overview: Anyone may record an open meeting (tape, film, or other means), subject to reasonable rules the body running the meeting can set for how recording happens.

7 issues across 6 determination letters:3 violation found · 2 no violation · 2 no determination / resolved.

Counts are per issue, not per letter, and come from automated extraction checked against sampled letters. Determination letters are not binding precedent.

How to challenge a denial on this issue

AI-generated summary of the decisions listed on this page, with each point linked to the letters it comes from. Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice. Open the letter and check the PDF before relying on any point.

When a challenge is strong

Officials made comments that dissuaded a person from recording an open meeting, even without formal action to prohibit recording. A public body violates OMA when its officials' comments dissuade recording, as they interfered with the statutory right.Based on: 2024 · A public body's interference with…
The public body interfered with recording and had not adopted any reasonable rules governing recording. Interference with the statutory right to record an open meeting violates OMA when the body lacks reasonable rules restricting that right.Based on: 2024 · Recording an open meeting of a vi…
The public body has not prescribed any rules governing the public's right to record meetings, as required by section 2.05. Section 2.05 requires public bodies to prescribe reasonable rules; failure to adopt any rules is a direct violation.Based on: 2016 · Restriction of recording location…

When the public body usually wins

The event where recording was denied is not an open meeting of a public body under the Open Meetings Act, such as a hearing governed by administrative code. OMA recording rights apply only to meetings of a public body; a hearing under administrative code does not trigger section 2.05.Based on: 2025 · Recording of a coal mine permit h…
The public body allowed recording, and the requester does not show any interference. Allowing recording, without interference, does not violate the Act, which guarantees the right subject to reasonable rules.Based on: 2020 · A county board's allowance of pub…
The body asked the person to move a recording device to accommodate others, and the allegation of restricted recording is uncorroborated. A request to relocate equipment that does not preclude the public's right to record, especially when uncorroborated, does not establish a violation.Based on: 2016 · Restriction of recording location…

Points to put in your letter

State that the public body has not adopted any rules on recording as required by section 2..05, and cite the determination finding that this alone is a violation.Based on: 2016 · Restriction of recording location…
If officials made comments that discouragd you from recording, describe the exact words and explain that this interferes with the statutory right even without formal action.Based on: 2024 · A public body's interference with…
When the body interfered with your recording and no reasonable recording rules were in place, assert that this violates the Open Meetings Act.Based on: 2024 · Recording an open meeting of a vi…
Remind the public body that the Public Access Bureau has recommend ensuring security personnel are aware of the right to record open meetings.Based on: 2024 · Denial of entry to an open meeting

Common mistakes

Assuming that the recording right applies to any hearing, not just an open meeting of a public body under OMA.Based on: 2025 · Recording of a coal mine permit h…
Thinking that any request to relocate a recording device automatically violates the right to record.Based on: 2016 · Restriction of recording location…
Failing to first verify whether the body has prescribed any recording rules before claiming interference.Based on: 2024 · Recording an open meeting of a vi… · 2016 · Restriction of recording location…
Believing that public bodies must allow recording without any rules—the Act permits recording subject to reasonable rules.Based on: 2020 · A county board's allowance of pub…

Facts to gather first

Whether the public body has adopted any rules governing the recording of open meetings.
The exact language or conduct of officials that dissuaded recording.
Whether the event was an open meeting of a public body under the Open Meetings Act or some other proceeding.
Any documentation or witnesses that corroborate interference or the lack of recording rules.

These determination letters are non-binding and fact-specific; always verify the full PDF for context and details.

Drafting brief for an AI assistant

Copy this into your assistant to help draft a request, appeal, or challenge to a denial that turns on this issue. It carries the rules and decisions, not your facts: add those yourself. Machine-readable version: oma-2-05.json.

TOPIC: 5 ILCS 120/2.05
SOURCE: Illinois Attorney General Public Access Bureau decisions compiled at https://illinoisfoia.org/issues/oma-2-05/
NOTE: Determination letters are not binding precedent; they show how the Bureau applies the law. Verify every decision against the source PDF before citing it.

VIOLATION FOUND (3):
- Interference with right to record open meeting
  Rule: A public body violates OMA when its officials' comments dissuade a person from recording an open meeting, even without formal action prohibiting recording.
  Decision: A public body's interference with recording an open meeting (non-binding determination letter, October 10, 2024) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-83040/
- Interference with right to record meeting
  Rule: A public body violates OMA when it interferes with a person's statutory right to record an open meeting absent reasonable rules restricting that right.
  Decision: Recording an open meeting of a village board (non-binding determination letter, April 26, 2024) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-79291/
- Failure to prescribe reasonable recording rules
  Rule: Section 2.05 requires public bodies to prescribe reasonable rules governing the public's right to record meetings; the Board did not provide any rules.
  Decision: Restriction of recording location at a school board meeting (non-binding determination letter, August 18, 2016) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-42572/

NO VIOLATION (2):
- Recording of open meeting by public
  Rule: Any person may record an open meeting, subject to reasonable rules; the Board did not violate OMA by allowing recording.
  Decision: A county board's allowance of public recording of meetings (non-binding determination letter, October 26, 2020) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-64702/
- Restricted recording area at meeting
  Rule: The Board's request to move a recording device to accommodate others did not preclude the public's right to record, and the allegation of restricted recording was uncorroborated.
  Decision: Restriction of recording location at a school board meeting (non-binding determination letter, August 18, 2016) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-42572/

NO DETERMINATION / RESOLVED (2):
- Recording prohibition at public hearing
  Rule: OMA recording rights apply only to meetings of a public body; the hearing was governed by administrative code, not OMA.
  Decision: Recording of a coal mine permit hearing (non-binding determination letter, June 26, 2025) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-87334/
- Recommendation on ISP awareness of recording rights
  Rule: The PAC recommended that the Board ensure ISP security personnel are aware of the statutory right to record open meetings.
  Decision: Denial of entry to an open meeting (non-binding determination letter, May 8, 2024) https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-80495/



TASK FOR THE ASSISTANT: Using only the decisions above, help draft a letter. Argue from the rule and cite the decision by name and date. Do not invent decisions.

Violation found (3)

Interference with right to record open meeting
Rule: A public body violates OMA when its officials' comments dissuade a person from recording an open meeting, even without formal action prohibiting recording.
Violation found A public body's interference with recording an open meeting · October 10, 2024
Interference with right to record meeting
Rule: A public body violates OMA when it interferes with a person's statutory right to record an open meeting absent reasonable rules restricting that right.
Violation found Recording an open meeting of a village board · April 26, 2024
Failure to prescribe reasonable recording rules
Rule: Section 2.05 requires public bodies to prescribe reasonable rules governing the public's right to record meetings; the Board did not provide any rules.
Violation found Restriction of recording location at a school board meeting · August 18, 2016

No violation (2)

Recording of open meeting by public
Rule: Any person may record an open meeting, subject to reasonable rules; the Board did not violate OMA by allowing recording.
No violation A county board's allowance of public recording of meetings · October 26, 2020
Restricted recording area at meeting
Rule: The Board's request to move a recording device to accommodate others did not preclude the public's right to record, and the allegation of restricted recording was uncorroborated.
No violation Restriction of recording location at a school board meeting · August 18, 2016

No determination / resolved (2)

Recording prohibition at public hearing
Rule: OMA recording rights apply only to meetings of a public body; the hearing was governed by administrative code, not OMA.
No determination / resolved Recording of a coal mine permit hearing · June 26, 2025
Recommendation on ISP awareness of recording rights
Rule: The PAC recommended that the Board ensure ISP security personnel are aware of the statutory right to record open meetings.
No determination / resolved Denial of entry to an open meeting · May 8, 2024