Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. Attorney General
2015 IL App (4th) 140941
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Jan 2013 Superintendent Walter Milton signed a Separation Agreement; six of seven school board members signed the same Agreement during a closed session on Feb 4, 2013 (signatures undated).
- The Board posted the full Agreement and the March 5, 2013 meeting agenda on its public website four days before the March 5 public meeting.
- At the March 5 public meeting the Board president introduced an agenda item described as “Approval of a Resolution regarding the Agreement Between Milton and the Board,” and the Board voted 6–1 to approve the Agreement and dated the earlier signatures March 5.
- Molly Beck (on behalf of a newspaper) complained to the Attorney General (AG), who issued two binding opinions: (1) the Feb 4 signatures in closed session constituted impermissible final action under the Open Meetings Act (OMA); and (2) even if ratified publicly later, the March 5 notice/recital was inadequate under section 2(e).
- The Board sought administrative review; the trial court reversed both AG opinions (first as to final action, later as to notice), and the AG appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Board) | Defendant's Argument (AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether signatures on the Agreement during a Feb 4 closed session constituted an impermissible "final action" under OMA §2(e) | The Board argues those closed-session signatures were part of deliberation and not the final action; final action occurred publicly on Mar 5 when the Board voted. | AG contends the Feb 4 signing was the Board’s final action, violating the ban on final action in closed session. | Court held the closed-session signatures were not a "final action"; final action occurred at the March 5 public vote. |
| Whether the March 5 public meeting provided the required §2(e) public recital/notice to inform the public of the business being conducted | The Board argues posting the agenda and the full Agreement on its public website, and the agenda description and public introduction at the meeting, satisfied §2(e)'s recital/notice requirement. | AG contends the public was not adequately informed at Mar 5 (insufficient recital/details), so the March 5 vote could not cure the alleged closed-session violation. | Court held the website posting plus agenda description and public introduction satisfied §2(e); AG’s broader interpretation (requiring detailed explanation of significance) was rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Williams, 988 N.E.2d 1039 (Ill. App. 2013) (a final action must occur at an open meeting with a quorum present)
- Howe v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 996 N.E.2d 664 (Ill. App. 2013) (public bodies cannot take final action merely by circulating a document for signature outside an open vote)
- Grissom v. Bd. of Educ. of Buckley-Loda Cmty. Sch. Dist. No. 8, 388 N.E.2d 398 (Ill. 1979) (consideration in closed session permissible so long as final vote is taken publicly)
- Jewell v. Bd. of Educ., 312 N.E.2d 659 (Ill. App. 1974) (returning to open session to read motion and take roll-call vote satisfies statute)
- Kosoglad v. Porcelli, 478 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. App. 1985) (Act allows considering dismissal in closed session when final action occurs in open session)