PAC Addresses "Open and Convenient" Requirement of the OMA
Thanks to one of our readers, we recently
were forwarded a non-binding Public Access Counselor opinion (2019 PAC 58076) that
looked at whether a city council took sufficient measures to make some
of its meetings accessible to the public pursuant to the "open and convenient" requirement under Section 2.01 of the Open Meetings Act.
Media outlets reported that after a local election, an Illinois city would discuss the qualifications
of its Mayor-Elect during its April 22, 2019 council meeting.
Specifically, the city council planned to discuss whether the Mayor-Elect
met the residency requirements. At that meeting, however, the city council recessed the meeting prior to any discussion of the Mayor-Elect when
the council learned the Mayor-Elect could not attend the initial meeting. The meeting
reconvened the following evening.
The April 23, 2019 meeting was
held at its usual location, in council chambers. The city council stated that
it typically had seating for 49 members of the public,
although average attendance did not exceed 20. The council anticipated that turnout would be higher for both meetings based on the public’s interest of the
Mayor-Elect’s qualifications for office, so it supplied 103
chairs and allowed additional attendees to stand at
the back of the chambers. Attendance on both nights reached the chambers’
maximum capacity, and some attendees had to temporarily wait in line outside
of the chambers until other individuals left to gain access to the meeting.
One member of the public filed a request for
review with the PAC alleging that the city council violated the OMA by improperly
denying access to members of the public who wanted to attend the April 23, 2019
meeting because the meeting location reached its maximum capacity. The city
council responded that the city’s fire chief did not turn any member of the
public away or tell any attendee that they could not attend the meeting. The council further argued that at both meetings, members of the public were
eventually permitted access.
In its July 31, 2019 determination
letter, the PAC concluded that the city council did not violate the
accessibility requirements of the OMA. The PAC reasoned that the city council
only was required to provide reasonable access – not absolute access. The PAC noted
that the council took reasonable steps to provide access by more than doubling
the amount of seating in anticipation of a larger-than-usual turnout at the
meetings, and that the council allowed other attendees to stand in the back of the
chambers.
When anticipating increased
turnout at a public meeting, local governments should remember to take all
steps necessary to provide members of the public reasonable access. That may require bringing in additional seating, relocating the meeting to a larger venue, setting up additional rooms or areas where members of the public can watch live-streamed proceedings and still participate in public comment, or other steps to provide reasonable access.
Post Authored by Ashton Tunk & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment