The Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. The Attorney General of Illinois
77 N.E.3d 625
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Springfield School District No. 186 held multiple closed sessions in late 2012–early 2013 to discuss a separation agreement with superintendent Dr. Walter Milton; Milton signed a proposed agreement on Jan. 31, 2013, and six board members signed (undated) at a Feb. 4 closed session.
- The Board posted a March 5, 2013 public meeting agenda (four days earlier) containing a resolution item and a link to the full separation agreement (showing Milton’s dated signature and six undated board signatures).
- At the March 5 open meeting the Board president read the resolution recommending approval of the separation agreement; the Board voted 6–1 to approve and then dated the previously unsigned board signatures.
- The Illinois Attorney General issued binding opinions finding multiple Open Meetings Act (OMA) violations, including (1) final action taken at the closed session and (2) inadequate public recital under section 2(e) at the open meeting.
- The Sangamon County circuit court and the Fourth District appellate court reversed the Attorney General on the section 2(e) recital issue; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Attorney General's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does section 2(e) require an explanation of the significance of the contemplated action during the public recital? | Section 2(e)’s phrase “and other information that will inform the public” requires recital of information sufficient to explain significance; verbal explanation at meeting required. | Section 2(e) requires only identification of the nature/identity of the matter; requiring explanation or "key terms" is unworkable and not textually mandated. | The statute requires a recital of the nature and sufficient identifying detail, but not an explanation of terms or significance; no deference to AG on this plain-meaning question. |
| Must the public recital occur during the open meeting immediately before final action (versus relying on prior agenda posting)? | Recital must occur at the open meeting; prior postings alone cannot satisfy the "preceded by" requirement. | The content of a previously posted agenda may be considered in assessing sufficiency of the recital. | Recital must occur at the open meeting prior to the vote; the Court did not decide whether prior posting may supplement a recital and expressly declined to rely on prior posting in its decision. |
| Was the Board’s March 5 recital sufficient to identify the particular transaction? | The president’s recital was too vague and should have recited key terms (e.g., lump-sum payment) to inform the public. | The president’s recital named the nature (separation agreement and release) and the parties (Dr. Milton and the Board); reading the full contract was impractical and unnecessary. | The recital was sufficient: it announced the nature and identified the specific transaction (separation agreement between Dr. Milton and the Board); therefore the public vote was valid. |
| Did the undated signatures/acts in closed session constitute unlawful final action? | Signing at the closed session amounted to final action and implementation without a valid public recital/approval. | Final action cannot occur in closed session; the public vote is the final action. | Final action occurs only upon valid public vote; closed-session preliminaries do not constitute final action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hadley v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 224 Ill. 2d 365 (no deference to agency interpretation that conflicts with statute)
- Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433 (ambiguity permits resort to aids of construction)
- People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206 (apply statute as written when language is clear)
- Jones, 214 Ill. 2d 187 (statute construed so no part is superfluous)
- Vine Street Clinic v. HealthLink, Inc., 222 Ill. 2d 276 (presume legislature did not intend absurd results)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (standard for reviewing mixed questions of fact and law)
- Grissom v. Board of Education of Buckley-Loda Community School District No. 8, 75 Ill. 2d 314 (closed-session preliminary action permissible when final action taken publicly)