Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. Attorney General of Illinois
44 N.E.3d 1245
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- In early 2013 the Springfield School Board negotiated and executed a 19‑page separation agreement with Superintendent Walter Milton; Milton signed Jan 31 and six of seven board members signed during a Feb 4 closed session (signatures undated at that time).
- The Board posted the full agreement and the March 5 meeting agenda (listing approval of the agreement) on its public website four days before the public meeting.
- At the March 5, 2013 public meeting the Board president introduced the agenda item and the Board voted 6–1 to approve the agreement; the six members then added the March 5 date to their signatures.
- Molly Beck (on behalf of a newspaper) complained to the Attorney General (AG), alleging the Board took final action in closed session in violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA).
- The AG issued two binding opinions: (1) the Feb 4 signatures constituted prohibited final action in violation of 5 ILCS 120/2(e); (2) even if not, the March 5 vote failed 2(e)’s notice/recital requirement because the public was not adequately informed. The circuit court reversed both AG opinions; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Board) | Defendant's Argument (AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether signatures on the agreement during a Feb 4 closed session constituted a prohibited "final action" under OMA §2(e) | The Feb 4 signatures were preparatory; final action occurred at the open March 5 vote | The Feb 4 signing was the Board's final action, so it violated §2(e) | The court held the Feb 4 signatures were not final action; final action occurred at the March 5 public vote |
| Whether the March 5 approval satisfied §2(e)’s requirement that final action be preceded by a public recital/notice sufficient to inform the public | Posting the agenda with a link to the full agreement on the Board website and the president’s introduction adequately informed the public of the nature of the business | The posting and limited discussion were insufficient; the Board failed to adequately inform the public of the nature and effect of the action | The court held the website posting and agenda description satisfied §2(e); the AG’s reading would impose greater notice requirements than the statute mandates |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Williams, 988 N.E.2d 1039 (2013) (board final action must occur at an open meeting with a quorum)
- Howe v. Retirement Bd. of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 996 N.E.2d 664 (2013) (circulating or signing a document in private does not constitute public final action)
- Grissom v. Board of Education of Buckley‑Loda Community School Dist. No. 8, 388 N.E.2d 398 (Ill. 1979) (preparatory closed‑session work is permissible where final vote is taken publicly)
- Jewell v. Board of Education, 312 N.E.2d 659 (Ill. App. 1974) (final vote in open session satisfies OMA even if preparatory action occurred in closed session)
- Kosoglad v. Porcelli, 478 N.E.2d 489 (1985) (OMA permits consideration of dismissal in closed session so long as final action is taken openly)