{
 "topic": "OMA section 2(c)(11) - Pending, probable, or imminent litigation",
 "statute": "5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11)",
 "family": "Closed meetings and exceptions",
 "page": "https://illinoisfoia.org/issues/oma-2-c-11/",
 "note": "Determination letters are non-binding. Verify against the source PDF before citing.",
 "counts": {
  "violation_found": 9,
  "no_violation": 10,
  "no_determination": 0,
  "other": 0
 },
 "challenge_notes": {
  "generated_by": "AI summary of the decisions listed on this page; not legal advice; verify each decision against its PDF",
  "when_a_challenge_is_strong": [
   {
    "text": "The closed-session minutes or recording do not show a recorded finding and specific basis that litigation was probable or imminent before the body closed the meeting.",
    "why": "The Bureau found violations where the body did not make and record the required finding, or relied on the mere possibility of litigation.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/#issue-1"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of potential litigation",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-49476/#issue-2"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "The closed discussion was about the merits, policy options, or underlying issue rather than litigation strategies, posture, theories, or consequences.",
    "why": "The Bureau found the exception was exceeded where the session deliberated on the merits or underlying issue rather than litigation strategy.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "A city council's closed-session discussion of a conditional use permit",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-68363/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of kindergarten programming",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-46638/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/#issue-3"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "The body justified closure only by saying the subject was part of its deliberative process or by a general attorney-client privilege claim.",
    "why": "The Bureau found no OMA exception permits closure merely for deliberative process and a general attorney-client privilege claim does not authorize closure.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of audit status and rule changes",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-75164/#issue-2"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "Only a discrete portion of the closed session concerned litigation; the rest did not.",
    "why": "The Bureau ordered disclosure of a discrete portion of a recording that did not pertain to litigation strategies, posture, theories, or consequences.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of non-litigation matters",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52493/#issue-4"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "The body pointed to a future threat or possibility of suit, not litigation that is close at hand or more likely than not.",
    "why": "The Bureau found a violation where the litigation exception requires reasonable grounds to believe litigation is probable or imminent, not merely a future threat.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a board member removal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-80076/#issue-1"
     }
    ]
   }
  ],
  "when_the_body_usually_wins": [
   {
    "text": "The body entered closed session after credible threats of litigation from attorneys on both sides.",
    "why": "The Bureau found those threats provided reasonable grounds to believe litigation was at least probable when the Council entered closed session.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of litigation and a resolution",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-74576/#issue-1"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "The closed discussion was about a resolution that was inextricably intertwined with probable litigation considerations.",
    "why": "The Bureau accepted that discussion as permissible under the strict construction of the exception.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of litigation and a resolution",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-74576/#issue-2"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "A pending action affects the public body even though it is not the named party, because the outcome substantially impacts its revenue or other interests.",
    "why": "The Bureau found a public body may discuss a pending action that affects it, not just one in which it is a named party.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "A town council's closed-session discussion of litigation strategy",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-73545/#issue-2"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "The body is relying on a pending action, not probable or imminent litigation, and the discussion stays within the litigation's strategies, posture, theories, and consequences.",
    "why": "The Bureau found section 2(c)(11) permits pending litigation as an alternative to probable or imminent litigation, so no probable-or-imminent finding is required.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/#issue-3"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/#issue-4"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "The body had reasonable grounds to believe litigation was more likely than not to be instituted or imminent, and the closed session was mostly within litigation strategy, posture, theories, and consequences.",
    "why": "The Bureau found no violation where entry was justified and the discussion stayed within the exception; in one case the vast majority of the session concerned probable or imminent litigation and was within scope.",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of kindergarten programming",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-46638/#issue-1"
     },
     {
      "title": "Emergency board meeting on personnel and litigation",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-47429/#issue-3"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of non-litigation matters",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52493/#issue-3"
     }
    ]
   }
  ],
  "points_to_put_in_the_letter": [
   {
    "text": "Ask for the specific recorded finding and factual basis showing litigation was probable or imminent—or actually pending—before the closed session; a bare citation or future possibility is not enough.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/#issue-1"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of potential litigation",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-49476/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/#issue-2"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "Say the closed session was limited to litigation strategies, posture, theories, and consequences; deliberations on the merits or underlying policy are not covered.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "A city council's closed-session discussion of a conditional use permit",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-68363/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of kindergarten programming",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-46638/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/#issue-3"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "Reject a general deliberative-process or attorney-client privilege justification; neither, standing alone, authorized closure in the Bureau decisions.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of audit status and rule changes",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-75164/#issue-2"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "If part of the closed session was outside the litigation exception, ask for the discrete portion of the recording or minutes to be disclosed even if the rest was proper.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of non-litigation matters",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52493/#issue-4"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "If the body relies on a pending lawsuit, check whether it can show the action affects the body and that discussion stayed within the lawsuit's strategies, posture, theories, and consequences.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/#issue-3"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/#issue-4"
     }
    ]
   }
  ],
  "facts_to_gather": [
   "The date of the closed session and whether the meeting minutes or recording state a finding and specific basis for probable or imminent litigation or identify a pending lawsuit.",
   "What topics were actually discussed in the closed session—litigation tactics and risks, or the merits and policy options of the underlying matter.",
   "Whether a lawsuit was already pending at the time, and whether the public body was a named party or would be substantially affected by the outcome.",
   "Any written or verbal threats from attorneys or parties; whether they showed imminent or likely litigation or only a future possibility.",
   "The body's stated exemption or explanation in the agenda or minutes, including any general attorney-client privilege or deliberative-process claim."
  ],
  "common_mistakes": [
   {
    "text": "Assuming a closed session was improper only because the public body was not a named party in the pending lawsuit; a pending action that affects the body can qualify.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "A town council's closed-session discussion of litigation strategy",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-73545/#issue-2"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "Demanding a finding that litigation was probable or imminent when the public body was relying on an already pending action; pending litigation is an alternative basis.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/#issue-3"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "Assuming that any discussion mentioning litigation is automatically within the exception; the discussion must be limited to litigation strategies, posture, theories, and consequences.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "A city council's closed-session discussion of a conditional use permit",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-68363/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of kindergarten programming",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-46638/#issue-2"
     },
     {
      "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/#issue-3"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "Focusing on whether entry into closed session was proper and missing that a discrete portion of the discussion may still be outside the exception and subject to disclosure.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of non-litigation matters",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52493/#issue-4"
     }
    ]
   },
   {
    "text": "Assuming a general attorney-client privilege or deliberative-process label is sufficient to uphold the closure.",
    "why": "",
    "decisions": [
     {
      "title": "Closed-session discussion of audit status and rule changes",
      "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-75164/#issue-2"
     }
    ]
   }
  ],
  "caution": "These notes reflect only the listed non-binding Public Access Bureau determination letters; outcomes depend on the specific closed-session record and facts, so verify the PDF and do not treat this as legal advice."
 },
 "issues": [
  {
   "issue": "Improper closed session under section 2(c)(11)",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "A public body may close a meeting for probable or imminent litigation only if it has reasonable, specifically identified grounds that litigation is close at hand or more likely than not to ensue.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of a board member removal",
    "date": "2024-04-26",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-80076/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Henry v. Anderson, 356 Ill. App. 3d 952, 956-57 (2005)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 16-007, issued September 13, 2016",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2016-pac-42395/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Whether Board of Review is an administrative tribunal",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "The Board of Review is an administrative tribunal because it is an administrative agency exercising a quasi-judiciary function.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
    "date": "2023-07-20",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59 (2006)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of Orland Fire Protection District, 2012 IL 110012, ¶ 56, 969 N.E.2d 359, 372 (2012)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Lake County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board of State of Ill., 119 Ill. 2d 419, 423, (1988)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Black's Law Dictionary, 1814 (11th ed. 2019)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Black's Law Dictionary 1501 (11th ed. 2019)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "5 ILCS 120/2(d)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "35 ILCS 200/16-95(1)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "35 ILCS 200/16-115, 125, 160",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Millennium Park Joint Venture, LLC v. Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d 281, 295 (2010)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30, 40 (2009)",
     "url": null
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Whether pending action affected District 211",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "A public body may discuss in closed session a pending action that affects it, even if it is not the named party, because the outcome substantially impacts its property tax revenue.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
    "date": "2023-07-20",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d. 21, 29 (2009)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Kraft, Inc. v. Edgar, 138 Ill. 2d 178, 189 (1990)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Black's Law Dictionary 70 (11th ed. 2019)",
     "url": null
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Whether probable or imminent litigation was required",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "Section 2(c)(11) permits closed session for pending litigation as an alternative to probable or imminent litigation, so no finding of probable or imminent action is required.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
    "date": "2023-07-20",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/"
   },
   "authorities": []
  },
  {
   "issue": "Whether closed session discussion was within scope",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "Once the litigation exception is properly invoked, only the strategies, posture, theories, and consequences of the litigation may be discussed in closed session.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of a property tax appeal",
    "date": "2023-07-20",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76232/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 83-026, issued December 23, 1983, at 14",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539, ¶¶ 35-37, 184 N.E.3d 366, 372 (2021)",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/2021%20IL%20App%20(4th)%20190539/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "March 10, 2022 closed session procedural rule changes",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "No OMA exception permits closed session merely because a subject is part of the body's deliberative process, and a general attorney-client privilege claim does not authorize closure.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of audit status and rule changes",
    "date": "2023-10-03",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-75164/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Gosnell v. Hogan, 179 Ill. App. 3d 161, 171 (5th Dist. 1989)",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/pre1996-128527/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Whether litigation was probable or imminent for closed session",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "Credible threats of litigation from attorneys for both sides provided reasonable grounds to believe litigation was at least probable when the Council entered closed session.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of litigation and a resolution",
    "date": "2023-08-01",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-74576/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "1983 Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 26, issued December 23, 1983",
     "url": null
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Whether closed session discussion improperly strayed into resolution merits",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "Discussion of the resolution was inextricably intertwined with probable litigation considerations, so it was permissible under the strict construction of the exception.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of litigation and a resolution",
    "date": "2023-08-01",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-74576/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/2021%20IL%20App%20(4th)%20190539/"
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 12-013, issued November 5, 2012",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2012-pac-20863/"
    },
    {
     "text": "Galena Gazette Publications Inc., v. County of Jo Daviess, 375 Ill. App. 3d 338 (2d Dist. 2007)",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/2-06-0197/"
    },
    {
     "text": "Gosnell v. Hogan, 179 Ill. App. 3d 161 (5th Dist. 1989)",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/pre1996-128527/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Closed session discussion scope under section 2(c)(11)",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "A public body may discuss in closed session a pending lawsuit that affects it, limited to the litigation's strategies, posture, theories, and consequences.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "A town council's closed-session discussion of litigation strategy",
    "date": "2023-01-30",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-73545/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Allied Asphalt Paving Co. v. Village of Hillside, 314 Ill. App. 3d 138, 147 (1st Dist. 2000)",
     "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2241339/allied-asphalt-paving-co-v-village-of-hillside/"
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 83-026, at 14",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539, 35-37, 184 N.E.3d 366, 372 (2021)",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/2021%20IL%20App%20(4th)%20190539/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Improper use of section 2(c)(11) closed session exception",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "A public body may not use the litigation exception to discuss the merits of an underlying issue unless litigation is probable or imminent and the discussion is limited to litigation strategies, postures, theories, and consequences.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "A city council's closed-session discussion of a conditional use permit",
    "date": "2022-07-05",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-68363/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 26, issued December 23, 1983",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Henry v. Anderson, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 956-57",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 16-007, issued September 13, 2016",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2016-pac-42395/"
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 83-026, issued December 23, 1983",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 12-013, issued November 5, 2012",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2012-pac-20863/"
    },
    {
     "text": "City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539, ¶ 36, 184 N.E.3d 366, 372",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/2021%20IL%20App%20(4th)%20190539/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Section 2(c)(11) closed session finding requirement",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "A public body must make and record a finding that litigation is probable or imminent before using the litigation exception.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
    "date": "2021-10-25",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Henry v. Anderson, 356 Ill. App. 3d 952, 957 (4th Dist. 2005)",
     "url": null
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Section 2(c)(11) reasonable belief in probable or imminent litigation",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "The litigation exception requires reasonable grounds to believe litigation is probable or imminent, not merely a future threat.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
    "date": "2021-10-25",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539, __ N.E.3d __ (2021)",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/2021%20IL%20App%20(4th)%20190539/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Section 2(c)(11) discussion limited to litigation strategies",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "Even if litigation is probable or imminent, closed session discussion must be limited to legal theories, defenses, claims, or approaches to litigation.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement",
    "date": "2021-10-25",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58651/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539, ¶¶30, 36, __ N.E.3d __",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/cases/2021%20IL%20App%20(4th)%20190539/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Closed session discussion of probable litigation under section 2(c)(11)",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "The vast majority of the closed session concerned probable or imminent litigation and was within the scope of the section 2(c)(11) exception.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of non-litigation matters",
    "date": "2018-10-05",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52493/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Henry v. Anderson, 356 Ill. App. 3d 952, 957 (4th Dist. 2005)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 83-026, issued December 23, 1983",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 17-004, issued June 6, 2017",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2017-pac-46720/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Discrete portion of closed session outside scope of section 2(c)(11)",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "A discrete portion of the closed session did not pertain to litigation strategies, posture, theories, or consequences, so the Commission must disclose that portion of the recording.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of non-litigation matters",
    "date": "2018-10-05",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-52493/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 83-026, issued December 23, 1983",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 17-004, issued June 6, 2017",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2017-pac-46720/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Unauthorized closed session discussion under litigation exception",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "A public body must find that litigation is probable or imminent and record the basis; mere possibility of litigation does not satisfy the exception.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of potential litigation",
    "date": "2018-02-01",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-49476/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Henry v. Anderson, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 956-57",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 16-007, issued September 13, 2016",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2016-pac-42395/"
    },
    {
     "text": "1983 Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 26",
     "url": null
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Closed session under section 2(c)(11)",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "A public body may close a meeting to discuss probable or imminent litigation, limited to strategies, posture, theories, and consequences of the litigation.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Emergency board meeting on personnel and litigation",
    "date": "2017-07-14",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-47429/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Henry, 356 Ill. App. 3d 952, 957 (4th Dist. 2005)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 83-026, issued December 23, 1983",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 16-007, issued September 13, 2016",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2016-pac-42395/"
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Improperly entering closed session under litigation exception",
   "outcome": "no_violation",
   "rule": "A public body may enter closed session if it has reasonable grounds to believe litigation is more likely than not to be instituted or imminent.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of kindergarten programming",
    "date": "2017-10-06",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-46638/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Henry v. Anderson, 356 Ill. App. 3d 952 (4th Dist. 2005)",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 83-026",
     "url": null
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "issue": "Closed session discussion exceeded scope of litigation exception",
   "outcome": "violation_found",
   "rule": "The litigation exception does not authorize deliberation on the merits of the underlying matter, only litigation strategy and related issues.",
   "decision": {
    "title": "Closed-session discussion of kindergarten programming",
    "date": "2017-10-06",
    "binding": false,
    "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-46638/"
   },
   "authorities": [
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 83-026",
     "url": null
    },
    {
     "text": "Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 12-013",
     "url": "https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2012-pac-20863/"
    }
   ]
  }
 ]
}