OMADetermination Letter (non-binding)Closed no further actionMeeting Notices & Agendas

DuPage Township Board of Trustees did not violate OMA when one trustee temporarily left during public comment

The complaint alleged that a board member's departure during public comment violated the public's right to address officials.

Date issued: June 10, 2019
Request number(s): 58320
Public body: DuPage Township Board of Trustees
Statute(s): 5 ILCS 120/2.06(g)
Outcome: Closed, no further action

Plain-language summary

This determination letter addresses whether a township board violated OMA section 2.06(g), which guarantees the public an opportunity to address public officials under a body's established rules. The Public Access Bureau held that no violation occurred and that no further action was warranted, because the request for review only alleged that one trustee briefly left the room during public comment, not that any member of the public was prevented from addressing the board as a whole. The Bureau reasoned that section 2.06(g) protects the right to address the public body as a whole under its recorded rules, and cannot be read to compel the physical presence of an individual official during public comment merely because a speaker wishes to address that official specifically. The public body reviewed was the DuPage Township Board of Trustees, in connection with public comment at a board meeting.

Legal question

Does a single board member's temporary departure from a meeting during public comment to avoid specific constituents constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act's public comment requirements?

Holding

Section 2.06(g) of OMA guarantees the public an opportunity to address a public body as a whole under its established rules, but does not require the physical presence of an individual public official during public comment, so a single trustee's absence from part of a meeting is insufficient to establish a violation.

Summary

A DuPage Township Trustee alleged that a fellow board member violated the Open Meetings Act by leaving the room during public comment to avoid constituents, but the PAC determined the allegations did not state a violation of the Act.

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 violationOMA section 2.06(g)
Trustee's absence during public comment
Rule applied: Section 2.06(g) does not require a public official's physical presence during public comment; the public must be allowed to address the body as a whole.
Authorities cited: Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14-009; Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 50824

public commentmeeting conductboard member behaviorOpen Meetings Act

Reading view (892 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 Ms. Benford:

This determination letter is issued pursuant to section 3. 5( b) of the Open Meetings Act ( OMA) ( 5 ILCS 120/ 3. 5( b) ( West 2016)). For the reasons set forth below, the Public Access Bureau concludes that no further action in this matter is warranted.

In your Request for Review, submitted May 29, 2019, you stated that Trustee Maripat Oliver attended the May 21, 2019, meeting of the DuPage Township Board of Trustees Board) but that she " willful[ ly] depart[ ed] the meeting temporarily to prevent the public from addressing her during the public comments. i' Your Request for Review alleges that Trustee Oliver' s deliberate departure from the meeting room during the public comment period violated section 2. 06( g) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2. 06( g) ( West 2016)), because several residents who wished to address Trustee Oliver specifically during their public comments were not able to do public from addressing its members in a manner inconsistent with its established and recorded rules, or ( 2) prohibits a member of the public from providing public comment pursuant to its established and recorded rules, but those rules unreasonably restrict that person' s right to address public officials. Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14- 009, issued September 4, 2014, at 5- 7.

The requirements of OMA apply to " public bodies" as defined in section 2( a) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2( a) ( West 2016)). Thus, although the meaning of "public officials" in section 2. 06 of OMA is not specifically defined, the intention of that section appears to be to allow the public to address the pubic body as a whole while it is gathered in open session, subject to reasonable rules. Your Request for Review does not allege that individuals were precluded from " address[ ing] public officials" at the May 21, 2019, meeting, only that Trustee Oliver was not present. In this instance, the absence of one trustee during public comment2 is insufficient to conclude that the Board violated section 2. 06( g) of OMA. Although the Public Access Bureau has previously concluded that a public body violates section 2.06( g) when it prohibits a speaker from directing his or her comments to an individual member of the public body ( I11. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 50824, issued July 10, 2018), that matter concerned the public body' s attempt to regulate the content of public speech. Section 2. 06( g) cannot be read to compel the physical presence of a public official at a specific meeting, or during the public comment portion of a meeting, because a member of the public wishes to direct his or her comments to that cc: The Honorable Felix George Supervisor, DuPage Township 241 Canterbury Lane Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440

Notes from the original PDF (2)

so. Section 3. 5( a) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 3. 5( a) ( West 2016)) provides that "[ 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[.] The request for review * * * must include a summary of the facts supporting the allegation." ( Emphasis added.) Section 2. 06( g) of OMA provides that "[ a] ny person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body." A public body violates section 2. 06( g) of OMA when it: ( 1) prohibits a member of the OMA Request for Review from Alyssia Benford, DuPage Township Trustee ( May 29, 2019). 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601 • ( 312) 814- 3000 • TTY: ( 800) 964- 3013 • Fax: ( 312) 814- 3806 601 South University Ave., Carbondale, Illinois 62901 • ( 618) 529- 6400 • TTY: ( 877) 675- 9339 • Fax: ( 618) 529- 6416
official. Because your Request for Review did not allege that any member of the public was improperly prohibited from addressing the Board as a whole, you have not provided facts supporting the allegation that the Board violated section 2.06( g) of OMA at its May 21, 2019, meeting. Accordingly, this office will take no further action in this matter. If you have any questions, you may contact me at ( 312) 814- 6437 or the Chicago address listed on the first page of this letter. Very truly yours, LEAH BARTELT Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 58320 o no fi war mun 2This determination does not conclude that it is appropriate for an elected official to purposefully leave a meeting to avoid listening to public comment, only that the facts as alleged here are insufficient to support an allegation of a violation of 2. 06( g) of OMA by the Board.