OMADetermination Letter (non-binding)Closed no further actionMeeting Conduct & Participation

PAC lacks authority to review Chicago committee quorum dispute under OMA

The complainant alleged that a committee meeting proceeded and took action despite lacking a quorum of members.

Date issued: December 13, 2018
Request number(s): 56006
Public body: City Council of the City of Chicago, Committee on Housing and Real Estate
Statute(s): 5 ILCS 120/1
Outcome: Closed, no further action

Plain-language summary

This determination addresses whether the Chicago City Council's Committee on Housing and Real Estate violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by voting on agenda items during a December 6, 2018 meeting despite an alleged lack of quorum. The Public Access Counselor concluded that the information provided gave no basis to find an OMA violation, reasoning that OMA governs meeting transparency but does not set or enforce the number of members required to constitute a quorum for a public body to take action -- that issue is governed by the body's own governing rules and other statutes, not OMA. The letter noted that OMA's physical-presence quorum requirement (section 7(a)) relates specifically to remote/audio-video participation under section 2.01, which was not alleged here. Because the Public Access Bureau's authority is limited to alleged OMA and FOIA violations, it lacked authority to review compliance with the City Council's own governing rules regarding quorum size, and the matter was closed with no further action.

Legal question

Does the Open Meetings Act govern the quorum requirements for a municipal committee's meeting?

Holding

OMA governs the transparency of public body meetings but does not regulate the number of members required to constitute a quorum for taking action, so the Public Access Counselor lacks authority to review quorum-size disputes governed instead by a body's own rules and other statutes.

Summary

Alderman Raymond Lopez alleged that the Chicago City Council's Committee on Housing and Real Estate violated the Open Meetings Act by taking action without a quorum. The PAC determined that quorum requirements are governed by local rules and statutes rather than the Open Meetings Act, and therefore closed the matter.

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.

No determination / resolvedOMA section 7(a)
Quorum requirement for committee meeting
Rule applied: OMA's quorum requirement applies only to remote attendance, not to the number of members needed to take action, which is governed by other rules.
Authorities cited: 111. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 48860 and 49185
No determination / resolved
Alleged violation of City Council rules
Rule applied: The Public Access Bureau lacks authority to review adherence to City Council rules or statutes other than OMA and FOIA.

quorumcity councilmeeting procedurelocal government

Reading view (847 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.

Dear Alderman Lopez:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 3.S(b) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (5 ILCS 120/3.S(b) (West 2016)). For the reasons set forth below, the information you have furnished provides no basis for the Public Access Counselor to conclude that the City of Chicago City Council's Committee on Housing and Real Estate (Committee) violated OMA in connection with its December 6, 2018, meeting.

Section 3.S(a) of OMA (5 ILCS 120/3.S(a) (West 2016)) provides:

A person who believes that a violation of this Act by a public body has occurred may file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor established in the Office of the Attorney General not later than 60 days after the alleged violation. * * * The request for review * * * must include a summary of the facts supporting the allegation. (Emphasis added.)

In your Request for Review, you stated that during the Committee's December 6, 2018, meeting, the first of the three items on the agenda purportedly passed with a unanimous voice vote despite the presence of just three of the Committee's 15 members. You further stated that after you made a "quorum call," the Committee Chairman, the Honorable Joseph Moore, immediately called for a recess, and that the gathering reconvened without addressing the quorum call: Ten aldermen had arrived by that time, you stated, but only six of them were Committee members. You asserted that the Committee proceeded to take official votes on the final two items on the agenda despite lacking a quorum, alleging that " this is a violation of the law as well as of the City Council' s own goveming rules." 2 The Public Access Counselor' s authority to resolve disputes is limited to alleged violations of OMA and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/ 1 et seq. ( West 2016)). See 15 ILCS 205/ 7( c)( 3) ( West 2016). Accordingly, the Public Access Bureau does not have the authority to review the Committee' s adherence to the City Council' s rules or to statutory provisions other than those found in OMA and FOIA. OMA governs the transparency with which public bodies meet and conduct public business; it generally does not govern other aspects of meetings, including the number of members of the Committee who must be present to form a quorum and take action. The requirement in section 7( a) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 7( a) ( West 2017 Supp.)) that a quorum be physically present addresses circumstances under which a member of a public body may be permitted to attend a meeting by.audio or video conference. 111. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 48860 and 49185, issued December 7, 2017) ( concluding that the requirement in section 2. 01 of OMA (5 ILCS 120/ 2. 01 ( West 2017 Supp.)) that a quorum of members of a public body be physically present pertains to instances involving remote participation). ( Copy attached.) Your Request for Review does not allege that any members of the Committee attended its December 6, 2018, meeting by audio or video conference. This is not to say that meeting and taking action without a quorum of the members of a public body is proper; rather, those quorum requirements are determined by the City Council' s governing rules and statutes, instead of OMA. Accordingly, the Public Access Bureau lacks the authority to take further action with respect to your allegations.

This letter serves to close this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at ( 312) 814-8413, jjones@atg.state.il.us, or the Chicago address at the bottom of the first page of this letter.

Very truly yours, 56006 o no fi war mun Attachment cc: The Honorable Joseph A. Moore Chairman, Committee on Housing and Real Estate City Council of the City of Chicago 121 North LaSalle Street, Room 300 Chicago, Illinois 60602

Notes from the original PDF (4)

1001 East Main. Carbondale, lllinois 62901 • (618) 529-6400 • TTY: (877) 675-9339 • Fax: (618) 529-6416 -ê-
JOSHUA M. JONES Deputy Bureau Chief Public Access Bureau
Letter from Raymond A. Lopez, Alderman — 15th Ward of Chicago, to Sarah Pratt, Public Access Counselor, Office of the Attorney General ( December 7, 2018), at 1.
Letter from Raymond A. Lopez, Alderman — 15th Ward of Chicago, to Sarah Pratt, Public Access Counselor, Office of the Attorney General ( December 7, 2018), at 2.