New rule to attend CPS meetings draws complaints
By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah Tribune reporter 8:11 p.m. CDT, August 28, 2013

A new requirement that participants sign up online to attend the monthly Chicago Board of Education meeting drew complaints Wednesday and claims the district is violating the Open Meetings Act.

Ronald Jackson, a regular at CPS board meetings, said he had signed up before the meeting but was turned away by security guards who couldn’t find his name on a list. Jackson asked to see the district’s legal department. Eventually, he was allowed into the meeting.

Jackson said  many others who tried to attend the meeting Wednesday where CPS was voting on its budget for fiscal year 2014 ended up leaving after being denied entry.

“I shouldn’t have to be harassed,” Jackson said. “District policy doesn’t override state and federal laws.”

Maryam Judar, executive director of the Citizen Advocacy Center in Elmhurst, said government agencies can ask for people to sign up to speak at public meetings, or even require people to sign up to get a count on attendance. But they cannot deny someone entry into a public meeting because they have not signed up beforehand.

“The purpose of the Open Meetings Act is that deliberations take place in public, and the public may attend the meeting as an observer, Judar said. “It would be in contravention of the Open Meetings Act to limit that availability to a select few. They shouldn’t be turning people away for lack of signing up.”

The district’s guidelines stated people who wanted to speak or even observe board meetings  “must register in advance of the day of the meeting.”

CPS officials said later Wednesday they will be amending their guidelines to make it clear that the public is not required to sign up in advance in order to attend the board meeting.

“Our goal is to ensure the safety and accommodate the needs of all attending our monthly Board of Education meetings,” said CPS spokeswoman Becky Carroll. “That is why we are requesting, but not requiring, that members of the public planning to attend these meetings to register in advance so we can best prepare to accommodate all visitors on those days. Any member of the public who wishes to attend the Board meeting can do so without registering in advance given that there is adequate space in Board chambers and its overflow room."

nahmed@tribune.com

Read the article at the chicagotribune.com here

 CAC is proud to partner with Medill Watchdog.  Both organizations value training the next generation of community lawyers and investigative reporters and the collaborative process.

At CAC, we help concerned citizens address local public policy issues.  Often times, the issues brought to our office by concerned citizens are cutting edge issues that have a regional or statewide impact.  Part of our mission is making our government institutions more accountable, transparency, and accessible, combined with strengthening citizens' knowledge base, skills, and confidence to participate in the democratic process.

CAC's collaboration with Medill Watchdog provides an opportunity for student investigative journalists to make FOIA requests, interview members of the community on their issue, interview public officials, and more. 

Resulting from our collaboration are the articles  No Sunshine in the Forest and Trouble on the Board

By EMILY K. COLEMAN - ecoleman@shawmedia.com
http://www.nwherald.com/2013/07/15/state-office-rules-it-cant-review-d-46-minutes/amccmdp/

PRAIRIE GROVE – A time limit on when the public can challenge what a public entity does behind closed doors “just defies common sense,” an open government advocate said.

The Illinois Open Meetings Act lays out what governmental boards are allowed – and not allowed – to talk about in closed session, and the law gives residents 60 days from when a possible violation occurs to file a request for review with the Attorney General’s Office.

The Northwest Herald submitted a request for review after receiving minutes from closed-session meetings of the Prairie Grove District 46 school board, but last week, the Attorney General’s Office responded, saying it did not have the authority to review any potential violations because of the 60-day time limit.

The board met nine times behind closed doors from Nov. 13 to April 23, and the minutes for six of those closed sessions were released at a board meeting in June.

Based on the minutes, it appears that the school board possibly discussed what should have been public policy decisions, including the reorganization of district positions and changes in the junior high’s master schedule in light of declining enrollment and teacher retirements.

The minutes were reviewed by the district’s attorney before being released, and no questions or concerns were raised, Superintendent Lynette Zimmer said in an email after the release.       

Public bodies have to review minutes from closed sessions for release twice a year, and because those release dates mean minutes aren’t always released within that 60-day time period, it can “sometimes be very frustrating,” said Don Craven, an attorney for the Illinois Press Association.

“Unless you have someone on the inside who blows the whistle, it’s not very helpful,” said Maryam Judar, the executive director of the Citizen Advocacy Center, adding that the time limit is “very problematic” because residents often don’t find out a violation occurred until long after the meeting happened.

The Citizen Advocacy Center helps residents file record requests under the Freedom of Information Act and challenge governments when they deny those requests or violate the Open Meetings Act.

Judar would like to see the law changed either to remove the cap or, if a cap needs to be put in place, start the clock from when discovery happens.

The Illinois Press Association has raised the issue, Craven said, adding that there is also a need for finality for public bodies.

“That [the review of closed-session minutes] happens every six months, and you’re now eight months out from the day of the decision,” he said. “You’re then going to go back and start things all over again? That is very difficult for a public body.”

Copyright © 2013 Northwest Herald. All rights reserved.

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUES OPINION: CITY OF ELMHURST VIOLATED OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND IS DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE VERBATIM RECORDING AND CLOSED SESSION MINUTES FOR TWO MEETINGS WHEREIN CITY COUNCIL
INAPPROPRIATELY DISCUSSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

From the article: Three trustees — including Doyle — and about a half-dozen audience members described the process as a secret ballot because the way each trustee voted was not announced.

"Secret ballot, closed ballot, however you want to say it," Hill-Corley said. "No names."

The process violates the law, said Maryam Judar, an open government expert and community lawyer with the Citizen Advocacy Center in Elmhurst.

"That would be in contravention of the Open Meetings Act, which requires that votes be taken in public and not in secret," Judar said. "That includes being able to ascribe the votes to particular board members."

Read the complete article below.  The first file is a pdf of the front page/above the fold placement of the  article in print.  The second file is an online version posted the next day with a different title.

Elmhurst City Council members went into executive session on November 19, 2012 to discuss  “Selection of a Person to Fill a Public Office,” which in this case was related to selecting an interim mayor.  The Illinois Open Meetings Act allows public bodies to meet in closed session for a limited number of issues.  Specific segments of the law are weak in that it allows public bodies to go into closed session on this particular topic and for generally allowing public officials to take a consensus vote in any closed session as long as a ceremonial “final vote” is taken in open session.   

That being said, public bodies are not required to go into executive session for any issue and the purpose of the Open Meetings Act is explicit: it declares the necessity for public bodies to conduct their business openly to the fullest extent possible. The purpose is not to cherry-pick exemptions to justify closed door discussions on topics that are, without question, issues of public concern. 

The mere appearance of the item on the agenda for closed door discussion is unacceptable.  This is especially true given the hyper-politicized environment that will have more than half the council members on the ballot this April for either mayor or alderman.  The public deserves to observe, in its entirety, the process of selecting an interim mayor. This includes the discussion about the procedure for how the Council will act as well as the political maneuvering for majority support and the ceremonial speeches prior to the vote.  

Just because a government entity can legally do something, should it and is legal compliance with a weak statute good enough to earn the ranking of an open and transparent government?  City Council meetings should aspire to more than pro forma activities and our expectations of government should be higher. 

Ms. Terry Pastika
Executive Director/ Community Lawyer
Citizen Advocacy Center