Merit Commission - OMA Compliant?

The McHenry County Sheriff’s Department Merit Commission met today for what I thought was the first time since October 21, 2008. It seemed to me that all the meetings between then and now had been canceled, so I was surprised when Minutes of three meetings in November and December were approved. Hey, maybe I missed them on the County Calendar, so I didn’t say anything at the time. Minutes were approved for November 20, December 6 and December 17, 2008.

What’s the problem? These meetings do not appear on the County Board Calendar!

So here we go again. Are these more Open Meetings Act violations?

The Merit Commission discussed the violation of the Open Meetings Act pertaining to its October 21, 2008 Special Meeting that had been reported to the McHenry County State’s Attorney in February. Commission Chairperson Janelle Crowley started to say that the meeting was planned for telephone attendance so that the County wouldn’t have to pay mileage for all the Commissioners to drive to the meeting, but the Commission’s attorney, who was conferenced in by telephone, interrupted her - but not quickly enough.

A public body, such as the Merit Commission, cannot hold a meeting entirely by telephone. The Illinois Open Meetings Act requires a quorum to be physically present in the announced location of the meeting. That’s what “open” meetings are all about.

The Merit Commission had been under time constraints (a deadline) to hear a complaint from the Sheriff regarding termination of a deputy. If they didn’t hold the meeting when it was scheduled, then the Sheriff’s Department wasn’t going to be able to move forward on the termination.

I raised two points. 1) How could there be Minutes of a meeting (October 21) that was not legally held and 2) if you don’t vote on a Motion, then no action was really taken. Of course, these are just subtle, unimportant points; right?

There is apparently a loophole in the Open Meetings Act that allows a public body to violate the OMA and meet, and that violation does not invalidate the action taken at the meeting.

The Commission attorney explained that, as long as the Motion was made, then they didn’t have to take a vote. Or at least that’s what I understand her to say. I suggested that, without a vote, they really didn’t take any action.

Today’s meeting really would have been a good meeting to tape-record. I had my recorder with me but didn’t tape the meeting. I wish now, of course, that I had the exact wording for the explanations that were given. If any Commission member or the attorney for the Commission would like to correct any errors in my reporting here, I surely invite their comments, so that the record can be clear. And I promise to publish them as received, or you can just post them as a Comment, where I cannot alter them.

The attorney explained that she (or they) had read the Open Meetings Act provision that allows attendance by telephone (under certain conditions) but had not read the other provision that requires a quorum to be physically present in order to conduct business. The Commission has apologized for the violation and said it was unintentional. Minutes for the October 21st meeting were ratified today.

But now there is a whole new set of problems, if the Merit Commission held three meetings without announcing them. The Open Meetings Act requires them to be published on the County’s website. Just telling one another about the meeting date/time is not enough.

Well, maybe there is a good reason or excuse. I’ll ask.