OMADetermination Letter (non-binding)Closed no further actionClosed Sessions

PAC declines to investigate former Firemen's Annuity board member for closed session leak

A former board member allegedly published a blog post containing audio from a confidential closed session meeting.

Date issued: April 7, 2022
Request number(s): 70648
Public body: Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago Retirement Board
Statute(s): 5 ILCS 120/2.06(e)
Outcome: Closed, no further action

Plain-language summary

A request for review was submitted to the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau on behalf of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, alleging that a former board member violated the Open Meetings Act by publishing portions of a confidential closed-session audio recording on his personal blog. The Attorney General's office closed the file, stating that the request did not allege a violation by the Board or any other public body, and therefore the office lacked authority to review the allegation. No further action was taken.

Legal question

Does the Public Access Counselor have the authority under the Open Meetings Act to investigate the actions of a former board member who allegedly disclosed confidential closed session recordings without authorization?

Holding

The PAC declined to take further action because the request did not allege a violation of OMA by a public body, placing the matter outside the PAC's jurisdiction.

Summary

The Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago requested a review regarding a former board member's unauthorized disclosure of closed session audio recordings, but the PAC determined it lacked authority to act because the complaint did not allege a violation by a public body.

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 3.5(a)
PAC authority over former board member's alleged OMA violation
Rule applied: The PAC lacks authority to review an OMA request for review that does not allege a violation by a public body.

closed sessionjurisdictionaudio recordingboard member

Reading view (613 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

This determination is issued pursuant to section 3.5(b) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA). 1 For the reasons explained below, this office will take no further action in this matter.

On March 18, 2022, on behalf of the Firemen' s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago ( Fund), you submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Bureau alleging that a former member of the Fund's Retirement Board ( Board) may have violated section 2.06(e) of OMA. 2 Your submission to this office included a copy of a letter that the Board sent to the former Board member. In that letter, the Board stated that it had discovered that the former Board member published a post on his personal blog, without the permission of the Board, which included portions of a confidential audio recording from the Board's March 15, 2017, closed session meeting, which the former Board member had attended as a trustee of the Board at that time. The Board informed the former Board member that his actions, among other things, violated section 2.06(e) of OMA, stating:

While it is unknown how you accessed the confidential audio recording, it is undisputed that you were in possession of the confidential audio recording of the March 15, 2017 executive session meeting and that such recording was removed from the Fund's office without approval by the Board ( or by court order) for utilization in your January 2022 Blog Post.[ 3]

Section 3.5(a) of OMA 4 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.) Additionally, the authority of the Public Access Counselor is limited to reviewing potential violations of OMA and the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2020)). 5 In this circumstance, the Board contends that a former Board member improperly removed the closed session verbatim recordings from the Fund's main office or official storage location without the authorization or involvement of the Board. This action is not attributable to the Board. Because your Request for Review does not allege a violation of OMA by the Board or any other public body, this office does not have authority to review your allegation.

Therefore, this office has determined that no further action is warranted in this matter. This file is closed. If you have any questions, my e-mail address is Shannon. Barnaby@ilag. gov.

Very truly yours, SHANNON BARNABY Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 70648 o no fi war fd

Notes from the original PDF (2)

15 ILCS 120/3.5(b) (West 2020). 25 ILCS 120/2.06(e) ( West 2020), as amended by Public Act 102-653, effective January 1, 2022.
3Letter from The Retirement Board, Firemen' s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, to Timothy McPhillips ( February 11, 2022). 45 ILCS 120/3.5(a) ( West 2020). 515 ILCS 205/7(c)(3) (West 2020).