OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ILLINOIS

KWAME RAOUL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 17, 20w

fa electronic mail
Mr. Krafl

V111 electronic mail

Mr. Richard M. Kashr Jr,
Fruin Kash

129 Nonh Avenue
Paris, Illinois 61944


RE: OMA Request for Review -- 2019 PAC 57971
Dear Krafl and Kash:

This determination is issued pursuant lo section 3.5(e) ofihe Open Meelings 
(OMA) (S ILCS For the reasons explained below, the Public Access
Bureau concludes lhal [he Clark-Edgar Rural Water District (Dislricl) Board ofTruslees (Board)
Failed lo provide sufficicnl advance notice Ihal it would discuss various issues concerning bulk
watrr raies during its May I, 2019. special meeiing, bul did adequaiely an die rneering
agenda that Ihc Board would consider and lake final aclion on an employee's salary,

In his Request for Rcvicw. received by this office on May 3, 20". Mr. John Kmfi
alleged that the Board yiolrued OMA during its May 1,2019, special meeung by taking iinal
aorion to increase lire salary urine Dislriul's general manager despilc lh: agenda iceni only
menlioning the reevaluation ofhis salary. Mr. Krafl also alleged lhal lhe Board improperly
discussed various rnauers because rhey did not fall within th scope onlie following agenda
item, "Discussion and Approval <Mr. John Kraft
Mr. Richard M. Kash, Jr.

July 17, 2019
Page 2

On May 14, 2019, this office sent a copy of the Request for Review to the Board
and requested that it provide this office with copies of the agenda and minutes for its May 1,
2019, special meeting along with a detailed written response to Mr. Kraft's allegations.
On May 29, 2019, counsel for the Board furnished those materials. On June 3,
2019, this office forwarded a copy of the Board' s response to Mr. Kraft; he did not reply
DETERMINATION

The intent of OMA is to " ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly
and

that their

deliberations be

conducted

openly[,]"

and to ensure that individuals are " given

advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is
discussed or acted upon in any way." 5 ILCS 120/ 1 ( West 2016).
Notice

of Final Action

Section 2. 02( c) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2. 02( c) ( West 2016)) provides that "[ a] ny
agenda required under this Section shall set forth the general subject matter of any resolution
or ordinance

that will be the subject of final

action

does riot define the term " general subject matter."

at

the meeting." (

Emphasis added.)

OMA

However, the Senate debate on House Bill No.

4687, which added section 2. 02( c) to OMA as part of Public Act 97- 827, effective January 1,
2013, indicates that the General Assembly intended this provision to ensure that agendas provide
general notice of all matters upon which a public body would be taking final action:
T] here was just no real requirement as to how specific they
needed to be to the public of what they were going to discuss that
would be final action. And this just says that you have to have a *

general notice if you' re going to have and take final action, as
to generally what' s going to be discussed so that — that people who
follow their units of local govemment know what they' re going to
be acting upon. Remarks of Sen. Dillard, May 16, 2012, Senate
Debate on House Bill No. 4687, at 47.

The Public Access Bureau has previously determined that " the General
Assembly' s use of the term ' general subject matter' signifies that a meeting agenda must set forth
the main element( s), rather than the specific details, of an item on which the public body intends

to take final action." III. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 45667, issued February 16, 2017, at 4- 5
determining that agenda item " appointment of the city administrator" did not violate section
2. 02( c) of OMA). Additionally, the Public Access Bureau has determined that the language of
section 2. 02( c) of OMA " requires a public body' s agenda to
identify the general subject matter of

 Mr. John Kraft
Mr. Richard

M. Kash, Jr.

July 17, 2019
Page 3

final action — not what particular action will be taken by a public body."

III. Att' y Gen. PAC

Req. Rev. Ltr. 39177, issued February 2, 2016, at 3- 4 ( determining that agenda item " Illinois Rt.
53/ 120 Project Environmental

impact Statement"

did not violate section 2. 02( c) of OMA

because by inclusion on the agenda, it could be inferred that the Board anticipated taking final
action

on the matter).

The agenda item concerning the salary for the District' s general manager
provided:

V.

New business Consider and Act Upon:

b) Re- evaluation of General Man[ a] ger Salaryl21

This agenda item sufficiently identified the general subject matter of the action to
be taken, namely that the Board planned to act on the general manager' s salary after reevaluation.
Although, the agenda item did not specify that the Board would vote to increase the salary of the
general manager, that level of detail was not required to provide adequate advance notice of the

general subject matter of the Board' s final action. Accordingly, this office concludes that the
Board did not violate section 2. 02( c) of OMA in connection with that vote during its May 1,
2019, special meeting.
Special Meeting Discussion

notice
notice

Section 2. 02( a) of OMA ( 5 ILCS 120/ 2. 02( a) ( West 2016)) provides that "[ p] ublic
shall be given at least 48 hours before such meeting, which
any
meeting * * *
shall also include the agenda for the special * * *
meeting, but the validity of any action

of

special

taken by the public body which is germane to a subject on the agenda shall not be affected by
other errors or omissions in the agenda."

Section 2. 02( a) of OMA also provides that "[ t] he

requirement of a regular meeting agenda shall not preclude the consideration of items not
specifically set forth in the agenda." Although a public body may discuss items not on the
agenda during a regular meeting under the express language of section 2. 02( a) of OMA, the
General Assembly specifically omitted that right for a public body holding a special meeting.
See People

v.

Smith, 2016 IL 119659, ¶ 30, 76 N. E. 3d 1251,

1258 ( 2016) ("[ W] here the

legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section

of the same statute, courts will presume that the legislature acted intentionally in the exclusion or
Clark -Edgar Rural Water District Board of Trustees, Agenda Item V( b), Re- evaluation of General
Man[ a]

ger

Salary ( May

1, 2019).

 Mr. John Kraft

Mr. Richard M. Kash, Jr.

July 17, 2019
Page 4

inclusion.").

Therefore, the Public Access Bureau has determined that is improper for a public

body to discuss a topic at a special meeting that is not listed on the agenda. See, for example, 111.
Atfy Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 32604, issued April 15, 2015.
Mr. Kraft' s Request for Review alleged that " this Special meeting consisted of
extended

discussions

on

items

not placed

on

the agenda[,]"

such as " various grants/ loans for

townships to obtain to hook up unserved customers, grant/ loans and extended discussions on
taking over the Vermilion water service instead of selling them bulk water, and costs for boring
under the railroad. i3 In its response to this office, the Board argued that the agenda item for the

Discussion and Approval of Village of Vermillion [ sic] and Bulk Water Rates" 4 was sufficiently
descriptive to include the matters Mr. Kraft mentioned because the Board' s discussion focused

on providing water service to the Village of Vermilion ( Village).
This office disagrees with the Board.

Although the above -quoted agenda item

indicated that the Board planned to consider and potentially take some type of action concerning
the Village and, specifically, bulk water rates, the meeting minutes reflect that the Board
discussed other issues, including potentially taking over the Village' s system if the Village
qualified for a loan.' The agenda item did not notify members of the public that the Board would
discuss taking over the system or identify the general subject matter of this alternative. The
Board' s response to thisoffice also argued that even if the discussion went beyond the scope of
the agenda

item, it did not violate

the requirements

of OMA because

it did not take final action

on that matter. The requirement to limit special meeting discussions to items listed on the
agenda, however, is independent of considerations conceming final action. Accordingly, this
office concludes that the Board' s May 1, 2019, special meeting discussion exceeded the scope of
the meeting agenda. Because it is undisputed that the Board did not take final action on that

matter, however, no action by the Board is required to remedy this violation. Nonetheless, this
office advises the Board to constrain future special meeting discussions to the items listed on the
agenda.

3E -mail from John Kraft to AG PAC ( May 3, 2019).
4CIark- Edgar Rural Water District Board of Trustees, Agenda Item V( c), Discussion and Approval

of Village of Vermillion [ sic] and Bulk Water Rates ( May 1, 2019).
Clark - Edgar Rural Water District Board, Special

Meeting, May

1, 2019, Minutes

1- 2.

 Mr. John Kraft

Mr. Richard M. Kash, Jr.

July 17, 2019
Page 5

The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does

not require the issuance of a binding opinion. This letter will serve to close this matter. If you
have questions, you may contact me by mail at the Chicago address on the bottom of the first
page of this letter, by e- mail at sbarnaby@atg. state. il. us, or by phone at ( 312) 550- 4480. Thank
you.

Very truly yours,

4mM¢.,
U 01/

3anlw,

aYY

SHANNON BARNABY 0
Assistant Attorney General
Public Access Bureau

57971

o

202

notice

proper

improper

spd