Municipal Minute

A former county employee filed a lawsuit against a county board claiming the board violated various provisions of the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Specifically, the former employee claimed the county board improperly held three closed sessions to discuss his employment, which later led to his termination. He claimed that the county board failed to cite a statutory exemption before going into closed session and that the board did not have a quorum present at the meetings because they were held remotely. The former employee also claimed the county board failed to conduct timely semi-annual reviews of the board's closed session meeting minutes. He requested that the court order the board to comply with the OMA, release the minutes from the three closed sessions at issue, and award him costs and attorneys fees.

The county board filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds, including that some of his claims were moot and that his complaint was untimely because it was not filed within 60 days of the meetings at issue. The board also argued that his claims were the subject of previous lawsuits brought by the former employee and were, therefore, barred by res judicata. Finally, the board filed a motion for sanctions against the former employee for filing frivolous claims against the county.

The trial court ruled in the county's favor and dismissed the lawsuit. The court determined that the claims were barred by "res judicata" because they had already been decided in two previous cases. The court also found the OMA claims to be time-barred because they were not filed within 60 days of the meetings at issue, and that some of his claims were moot because the county board had resolved those claims. The court also ruled in favor of the county on its motion for sanctions, finding that the current lawsuit was frivolous because the former employee brought claims that had already been adjudicated, and ordered the former employee to pay the county $43,305.50.

The former employee appealed, and the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case, finding that the OMA claims were not timely filed, some of the claims were moot, and all claims were barred by res judicata because they had been previously adjudicated. The Appellate Court rejected the former employee's argument that the OMA allowed a plaintiff to file a lawsuit within 60 days of discovering the OMA violation, holding that the "discovery rule" only applies to discovery of a violation of the OMA by the States Attorney. The Court also found that the former employee's claims that the county board failed to conduct its semi-annual review of closed session meeting minutes to be moot because the county board had since conducted a review. The Court also rejected the former employee's argument that the trial court erred when it did not conduct an "in camera" review of the closed session meeting minutes, finding that a review of the minutes was not necessary for the trial court to resolve the case on the county's motion to dismiss. Finally, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's award of sanctions but remanded the case back to the trial court to review the basis for its award. Dorman v. Madison County Board.

     

Related Stories

• Board Violated OMA By Discussing Public Business at Private Energy Event
• PAC Finds Violation of OMA Where Board Did Not Name Candidate for Appointment
• PAC Determined that a City Committee was a Subsidiary Body Subject to OMA

 

On the latest episode of Ancel Glink’s Quorum Forum podcast, Ancel Glink Attorneys Dan Bolin and Alex Cambiazo put legal analysis to the test in "Artificial Intelligence v. AlexIntelligence!" Dan plays AI-generated summaries of recent, critical cases affecting local governments and employers, and Alex provides expert insights, corrections, and key takeaways from her own legal summaries. 

Cases Discussed:

• Undercover Officer Misconduct: Veronica Hinton v. The City of Chicago; Matthew O. Bryant; John Doe – Clarifying when an officer’s private actions fall "under color of state law" and the implications for municipal liability.

• Municipal Impoundment Fees: Matthew E. Carter v. The City of Alton – Examining the constitutionality of administrative fees for vehicle impoundment related to criminal offenses and the importance of administrative remedies.

• FOIA & Body Camera Footage: NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. The Chicago Police Department and The Office of Emergency Management and Communications – Understanding law enforcement exemptions under FOIA and the "reasonable expectation of privacy" for body camera recordings of victims and witnesses.

• Employment Discrimination: Kara Mitchell v. Exxon Mobil Corporation – Highlighting the importance of clear, consistent, and well-documented performance review systems in defending against sex discrimination claims.

Also in this Episode:

• A Public Comment segment addressing school flyers and free speech limitations in limited public forums, drawing on E.D. v. Noblesville School District.

• The Department of Public Works discusses Ancel Glink's presence and sessions at the APA-IL State Conference.

     

Related Stories

• Public High School Teacher's Termination for Social Media Posts Upheld by Court of Appeals
• Quorum Forum Podcast Re-Release: Tips for Newly Elected Officials
• Seventh Circuit Finds University's Social Media Page to be a Public Forum and its "Off Topic" Comment Rule Unconstitutional

 

On September 3, 2011, Municipal Minute published its first blog post called "Tweeting into Trouble?" At that time, Municipal Minute had two followers and they both worked at Ancel Glink! 14 years, 2,463 posts, and more than 3.3 million visits later, Municipal Minute is still going strong, providing timely updates on new laws, cases, and other topics of interest to local government officials and employees. A big thank you to all of our Municipal Minute followers and readers - your passion for local government is an inspiration to us, and we appreciate your continued readership.

      

Just a quick reminder to those municipalities or counties that have adopted or are considering adopting an ordinance imposing the 1% local grocery tax that was authorized by the Illinois General Assembly after the legislature repealed the state grocery tax, that a certified copy of the grocery tax ordinance must be filed with the Illinois Department of Revenue no later than October 1, 2025 in order for the tax to take effect on January 1, 2026, and the revenue stream to continue. P.A. 103-0871.

     

Related Stories

• Residents of Mobile Home Park Entitled to Injunctive Relief for Water Shut Off
• Court Upholds Late Fee for Vehicle Sticker Tax
• Court Interprets Procedural Requirements in Civil Forfeiture Statute

 

In response to a FOIA request seeking records related to a proposed commercial solar facility, a county land use department (department) disclosed certain records, but withheld two construction-related technical documents submitted to the department by a special use applicant pursuant to Section 7(1)(k) of FOIA. The requester subsequently submitted a request for review to the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (PAC) claiming the department improperly withheld the construction-related technical documents, because the department did not show that disclosing them would compromise security.

In its 12th binding opinion of 2025, the PAC determined that the department properly withheld the two construction-related technical documents pursuant to FOIA. PAC Op. 25-012. The PAC clarified that Section 7(1)(k) of FOIA exempts two categories of records: (1) architects' plans, engineers' technical submissions, and other construction related technical documents for projects not constructed or developed in whole or in part with public funds; and (2) the same records for projects constructed or developed with public funds, but only to the extent that disclosure would compromise security.

In this case, the withheld documents were construction-related technical documents commissioned by the private company, and no public funds were used to construct or develop the project, so these records were per se exempt from disclosure under the plain language of Section 7(1)(k). The PAC rejected the requester’s argument that the department could not withhold the records without demonstrating that there disclosure would compromise security, because the “compromise security” language only applies to projects constructed or developed in whole or in part with public funds, which was not the case here.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

     

Related Stories

• Court Upholds Village's Response to FOIA Request from Recurrent Requester
• PAC Finds Separation Agreement Was Not Exempt in its Entirety From FOIA
• PAC Issues 8th Binding Opinion on FOIA Challenge