OMADetermination Letter (non-binding)Violation foundClosed Sessions

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing bidding process in closed session

The Council discussed authorization for a bidding process during a closed session.

Date issued: March 28, 2018
Request number(s): 51599
Public body: Pekin City Council
Statute(s): 5 ILCS 120/2
Exemption(s) discussed: 5 ILCS 120/2(c) — General closed-session exceptions 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1) — Employee/contractor appointment, discipline, or performance
Outcome: Violation found

Plain-language summary

A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council discussed bidding processes in a closed session, which should have been public. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's Office reviewed the matter and concluded that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the exception they cited. This means the Council failed to follow the law's requirement that public business be conducted openly.

Legal question

Whether the Pekin City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing authorization for a bidding process during a closed session.

Holding

The Pekin City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the cited exception.

Summary

A requester alleged that the Pekin City Council improperly discussed authorization for a bidding process during a closed session. The PAC determined that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters outside the scope of the cited closed session exception.

Issues decided in this letter

Each question the Public Access Bureau decided, with the rule it applied. Extracted automatically from the letter; the source PDF is authoritative.

Violation foundOMA section 2(a)
Closed session discussion outside scope of 2(c)(1) exception
Rule applied: A public body violates OMA by discussing matters in closed session that do not fall within the scope of the cited exception, such as general duties rather than specific employee performance.
Authorities cited: Gosnell v. Hogan, 179 Ill. App. 3d 161, 171 (5th Dist. 1989); Henry v. Anderson, 356 Ill. App. 3d 952, 996-97 (4th Dist. 2005); Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 16-013; Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 12-011; Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 12658, issued July 7, 2011; Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 15-007
No violationOMA section 2a
Agenda did not list exception for closed session
Rule applied: A public body may decide to go into closed session during a properly noticed open meeting without listing the closed session or its topics on the agenda, as long as it publicly cites the specific exception at the time of the vote.
Authorities cited: Wyman v. Schweighart, 385 Ill. App. 3d 1099, 1107 (2008)

closed sessionbidding processopen meetings acttransparency

Reading view (1,819 words)

This reading view follows the source PDF's positioned text blocks. Page headers, repeated office furniture, and lower-margin notes are kept out of the narrative; source notes are available below. Reconstruction is automatic and imperfect — the PDF is the authoritative version, and it's linked on this page.

Via electronic mail Ms. Sue E. McMillan City Clerk 111 South Capitol Street Pekin, Illinois 61554 smcmillan@ci.pekin.il.us RE: OMA Request for Review-2018 PAC 51599

Notes from the original PDF (1)

I Dearµ and Ms. McMillan: This determination is issued pursuant to section 3.5(e) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (5 ILCS 120/3.5(e) (West 2016)). For the reasons explained below, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the Pekin City Council (Council) violated OMA during its January 9, 2017, meeting by discussing certain matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the cited exception to the general requirement that public bodies conduct business openly. ' BACKGROUND On February I, 2018, this office received Request for Review alleging that on an unknown date, the Council violated OMA by dis¶orization for a bidding process during a closed session. To support his allegation, -cited a January 31, 2018, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response by the City of Pekin (City) referencing a closed session, the minutes of which were responsive to request for documentation showing that "the Council had given [the city manager] authorization to buy I I