Allen v. Clark County Park District Board of Commissioners
2016 IL App (4th) 150963
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Feb. 17, 2015 Clark County Park District board meeting posted an agenda listing two terse items: “X. Board Approval of Lease Rates” and “XI. Board Approval of Revised Covenants.”
- At the meeting board members moved to approve “rates that came from appraisal” and to “accept the revised covenants,” and the board voted to approve both items. No substantive explanation or key terms was given aloud.
- After the votes a member of the public asked what had been approved; the board declined to explain, saying the documents needed to be recorded at the courthouse first.
- Plaintiffs filed suit under the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq.), alleging among other things that the board failed to provide a sufficient public recital before taking final action (count III).
- The trial court granted the board’s motion to dismiss count III under section 2-615. Plaintiffs appealed and the appellate court reversed, holding the alleged recital was insufficient under section 2(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board’s brief, generic recital satisfied the Open Meetings Act’s public-recital requirement (5 ILCS 120/2(e)) | The recital failed to inform the public of the nature and key terms of the lease/covenants; therefore final action was invalid | The agenda and the brief statements during the meeting were adequate notice and satisfied section 2(e) | Reversed dismissal: the alleged recital was insufficient to inform the public and stated a viable claim under section 2(e) |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. Attorney General, 2015 IL App (4th) 140941 (Ill. App. Ct.) (section 2(e) requires notice of the general nature of the final action, but not detailed explanation)
- Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC, 2013 IL App (4th) 120139 (Ill. App. Ct.) (standard for reviewing a section 2-615 motion; pleadings construed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Hadley v. Doe, 2015 IL 118000 (Ill. 2015) (on review of section 2-615 dismissal courts consider facts apparent on the face of the complaint)
- Burris v. White, 232 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2008) (attorney general opinions are persuasive though not binding)