Allen v. The Clark County Park District Board of Commissioners
67 N.E.3d 536
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- At a February 17, 2015 Clark County Park District Board meeting, the posted agenda listed two items only as: “X. Board Approval of Lease Rates” and “XI. Board Approval of Revised Covenants.”
- At the meeting, Board members moved to approve the “rates that came from appraisal” and to “accept the revised covenants,” then voted to approve both items; no further substantive description was given aloud.
- After the votes, a member of the public asked what had been approved; the Board replied that the documents needed to be recorded at the courthouse first.
- Plaintiffs (Allen and Kraft) sued under the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA), alleging, among other counts, that the Board failed to give a sufficient public recital under section 2(e) before taking final action (count III).
- The trial court granted the Board’s section 2-615 motion and dismissed count III; the appellate court reversed, finding plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to state a section 2(e) violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s oral and agenda descriptions satisfied OMA §2(e)’s public-recital requirement before taking final action | The brief agenda entries and minimal oral statements did not describe the "nature of the matter" or key terms (who, what, duration, compensation), so the public was uninformed | The agenda and the Board’s oral remarks ("rates from appraisal," "revised covenants") were adequate notice of the nature of the items and therefore no §2(e) violation | Reversed dismissal: the alleged recital was insufficient as a matter of law to inform the public of the nature of the final actions; plaintiffs’ complaint survived a §2-615 challenge |
| Standard/specification required by §2(e) for a public recital | §2(e) requires sufficient information to inform the public of the business; plaintiffs urged a standard requiring disclosure of key terms of contracts/agreements | Defendant urged a minimal standard—general descriptions on agenda and brief oral recitals satisfy §2(e) | Court declined to adopt a fixed detailed standard but endorsed the utility of the Attorney General’s “key-terms” approach and held that, under any reasonable standard, the Board’s recital here was inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hadley v. Doe, 34 N.E.3d 549 (Ill. 2015) (on considering facts apparent from the complaint and exhibits when reviewing a §2-615 dismissal)
- Burris v. White, 901 N.E.2d 895 (Ill. 2009) (a well-reasoned Attorney General opinion merits considerable weight on matters of public access law)
- Board of Education of Springfield School Dist. No. 186 v. Attorney General of Illinois, 44 N.E.3d 1245 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (§2(e) requires informing public of general nature of action but does not demand detailed explanation)