AG: Village Board Violated Open Meetings Act

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's Office has concluded that Oak Park's Village Board violated the state's Open Meetings Act when it went behind closed doors to discuss certain details of the controversial hotel-condo development at Lake Street and Forest Avenue. 

The complaint was filed by resident David Barsotti, a critic of Oak Park's Village Board who alleged the village failed to provide proper public notice for a special  Nov. 22 Village Board meeting, that parts of that meeting's executive session portion should have remained open and that the board took "improper final action" during the closed session. 

Village attorney Ray Heise , an account that maintained Oak Park officials acted within the law and called some of Barsotti's allegations "inexplicably miscontrued."

But the state's Public Access Counselor Office, created by the Attorney General's Office to help residents navigate the state's sunshine laws, saw it differently and delivered its findings Friday. 

The report, posted along with this story, breaks down the allegations, which we've broken down again for easier reading:  

• Did Oak Park give proper notice of an executive session? Village officials did vote to go into closed session, but did so at a meeting for which proper notice wasn't given, a violations of the Open Meetings Act. 
• Did the village board act improperly by going behind closed doors for discussion of certain items? The Village Board did discuss parts of a business agreement with the developers of controversial Lake and Forest hotel-condo building, but they didn't discuss the price. And that's an important distinction, at least in the eyes of the Public Access Counselor. Public bodies can discuss in closed session "the setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body." But after listening to the closed session tapes, the Attorney General's Office concluded that the discussions, which contained talks on offering a permit extension to the building's developer, weren't explicitly about setting a price and could've been talked about in an open session. Again, a violation of the Open Meetings Act. 
• Did the Village Board take "final action" behind closed doors?According to the AG's office, no. Public bodies are allowed to "reach a consensus" on an issue raised in closed session, but they can't vote.  "It is clear from the evidence that the Board properly took final action to approve the Ordinances in question in an open, public meeting," the Public Access Counselor's office wrote in its report. 

So what's the penalty? The opinion of the Public Access Counselor is considered non-binding, meaning no legal action will be taken.  The Attorney General's Office is, however, requesting the village to make the minutes of the Nov. 22 closed session available and to follow the rules in the future. 

Village spokesperson David Powers said Heise, the attorney, wasn't in the office on Monday and refused comment until Heise returned and reviewed the decision. 

Reached on Monday, Barsotti said he was "pleased" with the decision. 

"Unfortunately, I think it’s indicative of a problem when so many meetings are behind closed doors and you don't know what's going on," he said.  "Hopefully this is a wake up call to be more transparent."