ANALYSIS: Patch Breaks Down the Open Meetings Act and What's on the Line for D161

Last week, talk about the state's Open Meetings Act dominated the conversation of the Board's meeting, which spread over two days.

But Scott Nemanich, the attorney representing the district, said , fulfilling the provisions of the act. Also, the time the Sept. 17 meeting actually started eliminated any violations of the act, he added.

Doyle, however, said he's considering seeking out his own legal opinion, saying he still believes there could have been violations with the Sept. 17 meeting as well as a special meeting held July 7. 

To shed some light on act and what's at stake, Patch talked with John Izzo, a lawyer for , which represents public bodies in the Southland, including . Although he wouldn't speak directly to the D161 situation, Izzo did provide background on the act. 

Who handles Open Meetings Act violations?

Civil lawsuits can be filed by anyone, including the Will County State's Attorney's Office, the act states. And the suit generally needs to be filed within 60 days of the violation, Izzo said. (That stipulation means a complaint couldn't be filed concerning the July 7 special meeting Doyle cited. Too much time has passed.)

The state's attorney also can file criminal charges against a board in violation of the act.

What is the state's attorney looking for when it comes to prosecuting a violation of the act?

Size matters to the state's attorney, and a public body's transgressions need to be big for action to be taken.

"Minor violations are not high on (the state's attorney's) radar," Izzo said. "Nor would you want it to be. However, if a board was intentionally violating the act in a way that was doing a great harm to the public, a state's attorney would try to initiate a criminal action." 

Nemanich echoed similar sentiments at Friday's continuance of the Sept. 28 D161 board meeting.

"For criminal provisions, they must be serious," he said, adding that state's attorneys in other counties have prosecuted boards because members were discussing matters in closed session when they shouldn't have, or they were improperly holding a meeting via e-mail.

Why such a high threshold when it comes to prosecuting a violation?

Much of it comes down to the fact that the State's Attorney's Office only has so many resources and so much staffing to pursue cases, and it needs to be selective, Izzo said. 

But he also thinks there's another, more idealistic reason: Violations of this nature usually fall under ignorance, not malice.

"Public officials aren't perfect. They're human beings," Izzo said. "Generally, they try to act in good faith. ... The public servants that I know are going to follow the law as closely as they can. If they make minor violations in the law, (the state's attorney) understands that there was good faith and are not going to prosecute that."

And to make sure officials are clear on the rules, the state recently passed a statute that requires them to go through training in the Open Meetings Act, Izzo added.

What are the consequences of violating the act?

The most direct effect is for any actions from the meeting to be invalidated. That, however, doesn't mean the board can't go back and repeat those actions during a legal meeting, Izzo said.

He added that he has seen some people try to use the Open Meetings Act to get motions overturned.

Board members also could face criminal charges. A violation of the act is Class C misdemeanor. 

Besides the courts system, are there any other avenues for complaints?

Instead of going through the State's Attorney's Office, complaints can be filed with the Public Access Counselor, a state office that responds to issues dealing with the Freedom of Information and Open Meetings acts, Izzo said. 

The Public Access Counselor can investigate a complaint and issue a binding opinion, according to the act. Izzo said this is a good alternative when minor violations happen, because the counselor advises the public body on how to avoid these in the future.