OMA Violations in Woodstock

OMA? The Illinois Open Meetings Act. It sets up rules and procedures (not Roberts Rules of Order) for how meetings of public bodies in Illinois are to be conducted. Last night a workshop was presented by the Office of the McHenry County State's Attorney.

In this article I'll comment on something I have observed at open meetings of two of Woodstock's commissions, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).

First, the HPC. Last October the HPC held a public hearing to kick off the consideration of the request by a Woodstock resident for Landmark designation of Grace Hall.

In the City Council chambers where the meeting was being held and before the start of the meeting, all the Commissioners of the HPC gathered at the front of the room behind the official desks of the City Council members. Then an attorney from the Office of the City Attorney arrived and joined them. I was immediately suspicious and considered stepping forward to listen in on their discussion, but I didn't.

The meeting opened, and the attorney for WCLS made a motion to continue the public hearing. The Commissioners quickly agreed. On a different evening it was revealed at a City Council meeting that the City Attorney had directed his young associate to advise the Commissioners to agree to the WCLS request to continue the meeting.

Was the discussion at the front of the room illegal? Under the Open Meetings Act it was. And the impropriety of it was confirmed in an answer to my question at last night's workshop.

Two of the members could have had a conversation. As soon as a third joined in and the conversation was about public business, it became a "gathering" as defined in the Open Meetings Act and subject to the Act. Their conversation was obviously in private and not for those in the room for the public meeting. You can't do that.

And the BOFPC? Without going back and re-hashing earlier meetings, the same thing happened on Wednesday, May 13, when the three Commissioners huddled with the attorney for the BOFPC at the front of the meeting room just before the 5:00PM starting time.

They were in the public meeting place, and they obviously were not deciding where to go for dinner after the meeting. In fact, all of them had better not be going out for dinner, unless they hold steadfast to the rule NOT to discuss any public business while the three of them are dining.

But the three Commissioners and the attorney seemed, to me, to be discussing the public business of the meeting. Their conversation could not be heard. Again, I considered stepping forward to listen in. I can just imagine the scene, as I'm sure they would have ordered me out of their hearing.

That "gathering" constituted a public meeting, even though the public meeting had not been convened yet. Next time? I'll be sure to step forward and listen to their conversation.

If they want to have a "private" conversation about the public's business, then they are going to have to go into Executive Session after the public, open portion of the meeting starts. And that closed session will have to be recorded.

Speaking of recording, my question to the BOFPC is, was your Executive Session recorded on May 13? Attorneys seemed to enter and leave the Executive Session, while the rest of us waited in the Council chambers. There is no problem with that, so long as the entrances and exits were noted on the recording and in the Minutes of the Executive Session.