Mr.

Barsotti' s Request for Review distinguishes between the Board' s " executive session" and
the open November 22, 2010 meeting. The meeting notice and agenda provided by the Village
lists " Executive Session at 7: 00 p. m., to Discuss Property Acquisition, Personnel, Labor and
Litigation in Room 130" as well as " Special Meeting at 7: 30 p.m., in Council Chambers." Based
on the language of the notice and review of the closed meeting recording, it appears that the
Village' s procedure for initiating this closed meeting did not comply with the requirements of the
Act.

The Open Meetings Act requires that "[ all! meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public
unless excepted in subsection ( c) and closed in accordance with Section 2a" ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2( a)).
Section 2a of the Act establishes the procedure a public body must follow in holding any closed
session. That Section states that a public body may hold a session closed to the public " upon a
majority vote of a quorum present, taken at a meeting open to the public for which notice has
been given as required by this Act" ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2a). It goes on to require that "[ t] he vote of
each member on the question of holding a meeting closed to the public and a citation to the
specific exception contained in Section 2 of this Act which authorizes the closing of the meeting
to the public shall be publicly disclosed at the time of the vote and shall be recorded and entered
into the minutes of the meeting."

The vote to hold a closed session must take place during a properly noticed and convened open
meeting. It appears, from the information provided, that in these circumstances the Board
members gathered in a room separate from the Council Chambers and voted there to hold the
closed meeting. To the extent that the Board failed to first convene a meeting open to the public
and failed to hold a public vote in such a meeting to move into a closed session, the Board did
not comply with the requirements of Section 2a of the Act. In the future, the Board must take
steps to ensure that any motion and vote to hold a closed session are conducted in a properly-
noticed open meeting and are included in the minutes of that public meeting.

Scope of closed sessions and compliance with statutory exceptions

Mr. Barsotti has further alleged that in its November 22, 2010 closed session, the Board
improperly discussed matters not authorized for discussion outside of an open public meeting.
Specifically, Mr. Barsotti has alleged that the Board discussed a redevelopment project and
associated agreement and that those issues have nothing to do with " property acquisition,
personnel, labor and litigation" which were listed in the Board' s agenda as the bases for holding
the closed session. Review of the materials provided by the Village indicates that the Board in
fact moved to hold a closed session for the purpose of discussing the sale of property, though it is
not clear whether this fact was made public at the time of the motion or included in the minutes
of the November 22" d open meeting.
As stated previously, the Open Meetings Act requires that "[ a] ll meetings of public bodies shall
be open to the public unless excepted in subsection( c) and closed in accordance with Section 2a"
5 ILCS 120/ 2( a)). Section 2( c) of the Act states that a public body may hold closed meetings to
consider certain enumerated subjects. The Act further states that "[ t] he exceptions contained in
subsection ( c) are in derogation of the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and
therefore, the exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects clearly within
their scope" ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2( b)).

500 South Second Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706 • ( 217) 782- 1090 • TTY: ( 217) 785- 2771 • Fax:( 217) 782- 7046
100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60601 • ( 312) 814-3000 • TTY: ( 312) 814- 3374 • Fax:( 312) 814- 3806
1001 East Main, Carbondale, Illinois 62901•( 618) 529- 6400• TTY: ( 618) 529- 6403• Fax:( 618) 529-6416
Section 2( c)( 6) allows a public body to hold a closed session to discuss "[ t] he setting of a price
for sale or lease of property owned by the public body" ( 5 ILCS 12012( c)( 6)). Review of the
recording of the Board' s November 22, 2010 meeting indicates that the Board did, as it
explained in its response, discuss only its options in negotiating to extend the term of a
redevelopment agreement centered upon the sale of real property of the Village to a developer.
The Board has explained that the developer' s deadline for performance on the agreement was
nearing and that the Board' s discussion was focused on determining the proper consideration to
demand of the purchaser in exchange for extending the deadline for performance of the promises
it made in exchange for title to the property. The Board did not, at any time, discuss the Special
Use Permit Ordinance about which Mr. Barsotti also expressed concern.

While we acknowledge that the " setting of a price for sale or lease of property" could include
determination of proper consideration for sale of such property beyond a fixed cash payment,
review of the closed meeting recording indicates that the Board, at this particular closed session,
was not discussing whether or what consideration to ask of the developer. Rather, it appears that
a proposal had already been presented to the developer demanding certain consideration in
exchange for extension of deadline for performance under the purchase agreement and that the
developer had declined to agree to that consideration, indicating he needed additional time to
consider the matter. Thus, during the closed meeting, the Board discussed the developer' s
reaction to the consideration that had been demanded and its option to extend the deadline to
allow for further negotiation, ultimately coming to a consensus about amending the agreement to
extend that deadline. The Board did not discuss alternative " prices" or forms of consideration to
present to the developer and, therefore, the Board' s discussion went beyond the " setting of a
price for the sale or lease of property," as authorized by the Open Meetings Act.

Final action in a closed meeting

Finally, Mr. Barsotti has asserted that the Board improperly took final action on amending the
redevelopment agreement during its November 22, 2010 closed session, in violation of the Open
Meetings Act. The Open Meetings Act states that " no final action may be taken at a closed
meeting." It also requires that any " final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature
of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business
being conducted," ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2( e)). While a public body may only take final action at an open
meeting, a public body may discuss and reach a consensus on a matter in a closed session
without violating the requirements of the Act. It is clear from the evidence that the Board
properly took final action to approve the Ordinances in question in an open, public meeting.
Determinations

We have determined that the allegations that the Board failed to properly post notice of its
November 22, 2010 meeting and that it improperly took final action in a closed meeting are
unsupported by the evidence. The evidence indicates, however, that the Board of Trustees of the
Village of Oak Park did violate the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters outside of the
scope of Section 2( c)( 6) in its November 22, 2010 closed session discussion of whether to
amend a redevelopment agreement to allow an extension in order to further negotiate
consideration. Finally, we have concluded that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by
voting to hold a closed session at a meeting that was not properly noticed and convened as an
open meeting.

500 South Second Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706 • ( 217) 782- 1090 • TTY: ( 217) 785- 2771 • Fax:( 217) 782- 7046
100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60601 • ( 312) 814-3000 • TTY: ( 312) 814- 3374 • Fax:( 312) 814- 3806
1001 East Main, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 •( 618) 529- 6400• TTY: ( 618) 529- 6403• Fax:( 618) 529- 6416
To remedy these issues we ask that the Board make available to the public the transcript of its
November 22, 2010 closed meeting. We also advise the Board to take steps to ensure that it
follows the proper process for holding future closed meetings, specifically to ensure that any
motion and vote to hold a closed session takes place during a properly noticed open, public
meeting.

We appreciate the Board' s cooperation in responding to this Request for Review. The Public
Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a
binding opinion. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ( 217) 785- 7438.
This letter will serve to close this matter.

Sincerely,

Aiwa,4l' G,

Amanda
Assistant Public Access Counselor

11150 rfr o ml mun

500 South Second Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706 • ( 217) 782- 1090 • TTY: ( 217) 785- 2771 • Fax:( 217) 782- 7046
100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60601 • ( 312) 814- 3000 • TTY: ( 312) 814- 3374 • Fax:( 312) 814- 3806
1001 East Main, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 •( 618) 529- 6400• TTY: ( 618) 529- 6403• Fax:( 618) 529- 6416