Thornton Township, Ill. (ECWd) –

Despite the board’s numerous attempts at claiming victim status, “The [Thornton Township Board] unequivocally violated the OMA…”

From the determination issued by the Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor:

“The Board unequivocally violated section 2.01 of OMA by failing to make its August 15, 2023, meeting convenient and open to the public. While the Board initially claimed the meeting room was at capacity, the Board acknowledged in its supplemental response that the room was not at capacity, blaming the security guard. The Board’s use of an overflow room on August 15, 2023, did not ameliorate the Board’s improper denial of access to the meeting room; it exacerbated the violation, as there was no valid reason to use an overflow room and the available evidence reflects that the meeting was not sufficiently audible in that location. It may be appropriate to use an overflow room to provide the public with contemporaneous access to at least the audio of a meeting when the main meeting room is at full capacity and an alternative room with great capacity is unavailable, but a public body may not otherwise divert attendees to an overflow room to prevent them from being physically present. This office cautions the Board to ensure that there is adequate seating in the Board room to accommodate prospective attendees at every future Board meeting, and to also allow members of the public to stand in the meeting room, subject to the room’s fire code occupancy limit. Additionally, on the rare occasions that an overflow room may be necessary to provide reasonable access to a meeting, the Board must take measures to ensure its meetings are sufficiently audible in that space.”

“The Board therefore violated OMA by prohibiting Ms. Wiedeman from entering the meeting room. This office cautions the Board to refrain from excluding members of the public from attending its open meetings absent a court order barring attendance, the occurrence of actual disruptions that impede the ability to continue conducting public business, or demonstrable evidence of a likelihood of disruptive conduct or a threat to public safety.”

“The Board clearly violated OMA by prohibiting Ms. Wiedeman from addressing its members in person during its August 15, 2023, meeting. The Board’s established and recorded public comment rules do not state that the Board may require public comments to be submitted by e-mail rather than voiced to the Board in person. Even if the Board had such an established and recorded rule, it would unreasonably restrict the right to public comment and thus be invalid. Public bodies have an express statutory duty to provide members of the public with the opportunity to verbally address their members at in-person open meetings. Therefore, this office cautions the Board to refrain from requiring members of the public to submit public comments in writing and ensure that members of the public are permitted to vocally address its members in person at each open meeting, and to otherwise fully uphold the right to address public officials.”

This opinion did cite to the Gerwin v Livingston County Board court decision, which we have discussed numerous times in the past.

Read the AG Opinion below:

77728 o 201 improper 206g improper mun