OMA section 2(c)(4)
OMAEvidence to a quasi-adjudicative body
5 ILCS 120/2(c)(4). Evidence to a quasi-adjudicative body
See every document citing this provision →
6 issues across 4 determination letters:3 violation found · 3 no violation.
Counts are per issue, not per letter, and come from automated extraction checked against sampled letters. Determination letters are not binding precedent.
Authorities the Bureau cites most on this issue
- Gosnell v. Hogan, 179 Ill. App. 3d 161, 170 (1989) cited 1 times
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 Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice.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
- The closed session was used to discuss general opinions, recommendations, or an advisory opinion, not specific evidence or testimony from a quasi-adjudicative hearing. The Bureau found that section 2(c)(4) requires actual evidence or testimony presented at a hearing; general opinions and advisory opinions fall outside the exception.Based on: 2024 · Closed-session discussion of fina… · 2023 · A board of ethics' closed-session…
- The session involved a general enforcement policy decision rather than deliberation on evidence from a pending quasi-adjudicative matter. Section 2(c)(4) does not extend to general policy discussions; it is limited to evidence or testimony in a hearing.Based on: 2023 · Closed-session discussion of audi…
- No written decision containing determinative reasoning was issued after the closed session. The exception explicitly requires the body to make available a written decision with reasoning; without it, the closed session is not authorized under 2(c)(4).Based on: 2024 · Closed-session discussion of fina…
When the public body usually wins
- The body is quasi-adjudicative, deliberated on evidence or testimony from a hearing (open or closed, where authorized by law), and published a written decision with determinative reasoning. The Bureau found no violation when a board followed this process, including closed-session consideration of evidence from a closed hearing specifically allowed by law, and issued written decisions.Based on: 2020 · Closed-session discussion of ethi… · 2020 · Closed-session discussion of ethi… · 2020 · Closed-session discussion of ethi…
Points to put in your letter
- Demand to see the written decision with determinative reasoning. Section 2(c)(4) only permits a closed session if the body later issues such a decision.Based on: 2024 · Closed-session discussion of fina…
- Argue that the discussion was about general policy, recommendations, or an advisory opinion, not evidence from a quasi-adjudicative hearing. The exception is strictly tied to evidence or testimony presented at a hearing.Based on: 2023 · Closed-session discussion of audi… · 2023 · A board of ethics' closed-session… · 2024 · Closed-session discussion of fina…
- Point out that no quasi-adjudicative hearing was held; without a hearing, there is no evidence or testimony that could be considered under 2(c)(4).Based on: 2023 · Closed-session discussion of audi… · 2023 · A board of ethics' closed-session…
- If the body claims the hearing was closed, require citation to the specific legal authority that authorized that closed hearing. The exception only covers evidence from a closed hearing when specifically authorized by law.Based on: 2020 · Closed-session discussion of ethi…
Common mistakes
- Assuming that any mention of 'evidence' in a closed session automatically satisfies 2(c)(4), without checking that it came from a quasi-adjudicative hearing.Based on: 2023 · Closed-session discussion of audi… · 2024 · Closed-session discussion of fina…
- Accepting the public body's denial without demanding the written decision with determinative reasoning that the exception requires.Based on: 2024 · Closed-session discussion of fina…
- Treating an advisory opinion or policy discussion as the equivalent of a quasi-adjudicative hearing, which section 2(c)(4) does not protect.Based on: 2023 · A board of ethics' closed-session…
Facts to gather first
- Whether a quasi-adjudicative hearing took place and evidence or testimony was presented at it.
- The agenda or minutes of the closed session to identify the actual topic and whether it involved evidence deliberation or general policy/advisory opinions.
- Existence and availability of a written decision with determinative reasoning from the body.
- Any record of the specific legal authority the body relied on if it claims the hearing was closed.
These determination letters are non-binding and outcomes turn on specific facts; always verify the full text of the PDF decisions before relying on them.
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-c-4.json.
Violation found (3)
Closed session discussion under section 2(c)(4)
Rule: Section 2(c)(4) requires evidence or testimony presented in a hearing and a written decision with determinative reasoning; general opinions and recommendations do not qualify.
Violation found Closed-session discussion of financial statements, transit cards, and newsletters · September 18, 2024
June 2, 2022 closed session enforcement policy discussion
Rule: Section 2(c)(4) applies only when a quasi-adjudicative body considers evidence or testimony presented at a hearing, not a general enforcement policy decision.
Violation found Closed-session discussion of audit status and rule changes · October 3, 2023
Closed session under 2(c)(4) for advisory opinion
Rule: Section 2(c)(4) allows closed discussion of evidence or testimony from a quasi-adjudicative hearing, but an advisory opinion is not such a hearing, so the discussion was beyond its scope.
Violation found A board of ethics' closed-session discussion of a query report · August 10, 2023
No violation (3)
Closed session under 2(c)(4) for evidence or testimony
Rule: A quasi-adjudicative body may consider evidence or testimony in closed session if it later makes available a written decision with determinative reasoning.
No violation Closed-session discussion of ethics complaint jurisdiction · July 23, 2020
Consideration of advisory reports not presented in open hearing
Rule: Section 2(c)(4) allows closed session consideration of evidence or testimony presented in closed hearing where specifically authorized by law.
No violation Closed-session discussion of ethics complaint jurisdiction · July 23, 2020
Written decision requirement for closed session under 2(c)(4)
Rule: The Board issued written decisions for two complaints and will issue one for the third, satisfying the determinative reasoning requirement.
No violation Closed-session discussion of ethics complaint jurisdiction · July 23, 2020