May 16, 2023
Page 2
Purely partisan political gatherings are not meetings of public bodies subject to
OMA. The Illinois Supreme Court explained, in People ex rel. Difanis v. Barr, 83 Ill. 2d 191,
202 (1980), that OMA "is not intended to prohibit bona fide social gatherings of public officials,
or truly political meetings at which party business is discussed. Rather, the Act is designed to
prohibit secret deliberation and action on business which properly should be discussed in a
public forum due to its potential impact on the public." The Court counseled that OMA
"balance[s] the right of the press and the people to view the deliberative and decision-making
processes of government first-hand with the right of public officials to speak their minds freely
and associate with whomever they choose." Barr, 83 Ill. 2d at 210. Further, a gathering
generally does not constitute a "meeting" for purposes of OMA when there is "no examining or
weighing of reasons for or against a course of action, no exchange of facts preliminary to a
decision, [and] no attempt to reach accord on a specific matter of public business." Nabhani v.
Coglianese, 552 F. Supp. 657, 661 (N.D. Ill. 1982).
Section 3.5(a) of OMA (5 ILCS 120/3.5(a) (West 2020)) provides that "[a] person
who believes that a violation of this Act by a public body has occurred may file a request for
review with the Public Access Counselor[,]" and that the submission "must include a summary
of the facts supporting the allegation." (Emphasis added.)
The information set forth in your Request for Review is insufficient to indicate
that the campaign event on March 10, 2023, constituted an improper "meeting" of the City
Council subject to the requirements of OMA. Although a majority of a quorum of the City
Council may have been present, your allegation that "city business and/or proposed city business
was discussed as witnessed and reported to me by [ ]" 2 does not provide
a summary of facts indicating that the three City Council members in attendance engaged in
deliberative discussions of public business amongst themselves. Although public body members
attending a campaign or political party gathering could convene a "meeting" of the public body if
they discuss public business as a group with the intent to reach an accord, campaign fundraisers
in which statements are made in support of candidates and political positions typically are not
subject to the requirements of OMA solely because a sufficient number of public body members
are in attendance. People ex rel. Difanis, 83 Ill. 2d at 210 ("The Open Meetings Act does not
prohibit political discussions between or among members of public bodies[.]"). Your submission
does not provide details indicating that members of the City Council discussed public business in
a manner that transformed the campaign event into a City Council meeting. Because your
Request for Review does not provide facts supporting the allegation that the campaign event
constituted a "meeting" for which the City Council was required to comply with the requirements
of OMA, this office has determined that no further action is warranted in this matter.
2
Letter from to Public Access [Bureau] (May 2, 2023).
May 16, 2023
Page 3
This letter closes this file. If you have any questions, you may contact me at
(773) 590-6840, [email protected], or the address on the first page of this letter.
Very truly yours,
MATT GOODMAN
Assistant Attorney General
Public Access Bureau
76532 o no fi war mun
cc: Via electronic mail
The Honorable Peter Schwartzman
Mayor
City Council
City of Galesburg
55 West Tompkins Street
Galesburg, Illinois 61401
[email protected]
