OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 1, 2015
Via electronic mail
Ms. Nancy W. Healy, President
Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees
14921 Ravinia Avenue
Orland Park, Illinois 60462
nhealy@orlandparklibrary.org
RE: OMA Request for Review – 2015 PAC 37132
Dear Ms. Healy:
The Public Access Bureau has received the enclosed Request for Review in which Mr. Dan Kleinman alleges that the Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees (Board) violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Specifically, Mr. Kleinman alleges that the Board denied access to its board meeting held on August 17, 2015, by locking the door and not allowing all of the people who wanted to attend the meeting inside the room where the meeting was held. We construe the Request for Review as alleging possible violations of section 2.01 of OMA (5 ILCS 120/2.01 (West 2014) (providing that all meetings "shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient and open to the public."). We have determined that further action is warranted.
In order to further evaluate this matter, please provide a written response to the allegations raised by Mr. Kleinman's Request for Review. Please also provide a copy of the agenda, minutes (draft form, if necessary), and any recordings from the August 17, 2015, meeting.
This information must be submitted to our office within seven (7) business days after receipt of this letter. 5 ILCS 120/3.5(b) (West 2014). As we review this matter, we will notify you if we require additional records or information. Please note that under OMA, "[t]he Public Access Counselor shall forward a copy of the answer or redacted answer, if furnished, to the person submitting the request for review. The requester may, but is not required to, respond in writing[.]" 5 ILCS 120/3.5(c) (West 2014).
If you claim that any portion of your written response is confidential, please send two versions of your response letter: a complete copy
Ms. Nancy W. Healy
September 1, 2015
Page 2
for this office's confidential review and a redacted version suitable for this office to forward to the requester.
Please contact me at (312) 814-5201 if you have questions or would like to discuss this matter. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
/s/
EDIE STEINBERG
Assistant Attorney General
Public Access Bureau
Enclosure
cc:
Via electronic mail
Mr. Dan Kleinman (will receive letter only)
641 Shunpike Road #123
Chatham, New Jersey 07928
safelibraries@gmail.com
 | Safe Libraries |
| Request for Review Under OMA of OPPL Library Board of Trustees |
| Safe Libraries | Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:21 AM |
To: PublicAccess@atg.state.il.us
Cc: spratt@atg.state.il.us, paccess@atg.state.il.us
|
Sarah Pratt, Public Access Counselor
Office of the Attorney General
500 S 2nd St
Springfield, IL 62706
DELIVERY VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Re: Request for Review Under OMA of
17 August 2015 Meeting of the Library Board of
Orland Park Public Library, Orland Park, IL
This is a request for review with the Public Access Counselor as to whether there has been another violation of the Open Meetings Act [OMA] by the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL], Orland Park, IL.
On 17 August 2015, the date of a regularly scheduled board of trustees meeting, at the time scheduled for the meeting to begin, the board locked the doors and refused to admit the public. Any member of the public in the room before the meeting began could stay during the meeting, but if they left the room to visit the restroom, they were not readmitted.
There are other indicia of the intentional blocking of access in violation of the law, and I incorporate by reference the following from library patron Kevin DuJan who attended the meeting and fortunately was present in the room before the meeting began and the doors were locked:
After the meeting was completed where the doors were locked the entire time, and despite the various interruptions caused by members of the public attempting to attend the meeting, the board president pretended she had no idea the doors were locked. A video of that can be viewed here as Nancy Wendt Healy is directly asked about this then affects a look of bewilderment as if she had no clue the doors were locked and people were knocking and banging to get in: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1082320331779851
Later, library director Mary Weimar admitted the doors were indeed locked during the meeting. She claimed they were locked due to a singles event on another date that was advertised incorrectly.
p.2
Library boards of trustees are empowered and required to follow the law. Under 75 ILCS 5, Section 2-1, “To provide local public institutions of general education for citizens of Illinois, the corporate authorities of any city may establish and maintain a public library for the use and benefit of the residents of the city….” Under Section 1-3, “Every library established under this Act shall be forever for the use of the residents and taxpayers …, subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the library board may adopt in order to render the use of the library of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of such residents and taxpayers.” So libraries are for the “use and benefit” of patrons, and library boards are to set “reasonable rules and regulations” to “render the use of the library of the greatest benefit to the greatest number….” The specific duties of the board are described in Section 4-7.
Section 2-7 allows boards to be dissolved for failure to perform duties such as (a)(1) “fail[ure] to hold regular meetings of the board” or (a)(3) “fail[ure] to perform the duties and functions imposed by law.”
One of those “duties and functions imposed by law” is OMA. Library board of trustee meetings must be held in accordance with OMA. The library board of trustees is responsible for the meeting and the locking of the doors. Since OMA requires open public meetings, the library board must comply with OMA and not lock people out of public meetings. The law does not specifically state that library boards may not lock the doors at the beginning of meetings, but that is so obvious that no one can be surprised the law does not specify doors to open public meetings must be kept unlocked during the open public portion of any meeting.
The library director works for the board. The library director acts as the board directs. The library director does what the board wants.
The library director admitted she locked the doors, so no excuse as to why she locked the doors should be heard. The mere fact that the doors were locked during an open public meeting is a violation of the OMA.
That aside, her asserted reason for locking the doors was, by her own admission, to keep certain members of the public out of the meeting. The library director admitted she locked the doors specifically to keep people who were part of the Frisky Singles group out of the board meeting. Why weren't people who came for the Frisky Singles group allowed into the open public meeting? If there was no dating meeting going on that night, why couldn't the Frisky Singles come into the meeting and be part of the civic process and participate in their government? They were already at the library. They were already in the room, or they could have been. But they were ostensibly unwelcome in this meeting and the doors were locked to keep them out. Why? That’s an OMA violation right there.
In this case the board wanted the doors locked. The board either asked the library director to lock the doors or it okayed the actions of the library director in locking the doors. This is the board's actions, not the library director's actions; she merely acts at the behest of the board.
While the library director says she locked the doors to keep out Frisky Singles or some such event, that is false. She actually locked the doors because the board directed her to do so, or allowed the condition to exist where the doors were locked at the time for the meeting to begin and kept locked throughout, barring allowing people to egress and readmitting few.
Then the board president acted like the board was clueless that the doors had been locked.
That is the board locking the doors to prohibit public participation in violation of law and using the library director as the cover to claim it was to keep out Frisky Singles. That is the board's actions. These actions are intentional. They are blamed on the library director. The library director blamed the wrong date on a publication advertising a singles event. The library, having signs all over the library, did not simply put up a
p.3
sign to redirect any errant singles. It is not credible that a library board would violate OMA and use as the excuse that a few people if any might walk into the wrong room.
The board wanted to block people from entering the meeting that OMA requires to be public. Further, disobeying OMA necessarily means disobeying the duty of the board as described in 75 ILCS 5. It’s a cascade of illegality.
With respect to OMA, section 2(a) reads, “Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public….” In my opinion, this locking of the doors at the scheduled start of the meeting violates section 2(a) and is an intentional, knowing, and purposeful criminal violation of OMA, thereby a violation of 75 ILCS 5 as well.
OMA section 2.06(g) reads, “Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.” In my opinion, keeping the people trying to get into the meeting locked out violated 2.06(g) and is an intentional, knowing, and purposeful criminal violations of OMA, thereby a violation of 75 ILCS 5 as well.
OMA section 4 reads, “Any person violating any of the provisions of this Act … shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.” To me, since the board acted together and left the doors locked throughout the entire time scheduled for an open meeting, and since the law states “any person,” each library trustee is individually liable for violations of OMA 2(a) and OMA 2.06(g) and should have to suffer the consequences consecutively, not concurrently.
The board’s attorney from Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins was present, so not having the presence of council should not be relevant to this matter as council was present. While the attorney took no action to unlock the doors, the library board is ultimately responsible for the library board’s actions or failures thereof. Whether the lawyer failed to perform his duty or did so incompetently is a matter for another venue.
Let me add the OPPL board of trustees is a repeat offender of OMA (and FOIA). This matter might best be considered in that light. This is not an innocent library board trying not to be interrupted by errant singles looking for a missing meeting. This is a library board that engages in a pattern of violating various open government laws and announcing how such laws and Attorney General advisory opinions do not apply to them, all in an effort to continue to provide child p0rnography in accordance with American Library Association [ALA] guidance and direct input. ALA even used or uses OPPL employees including the library director to train librarians and library trustees to thwart child p0rnography whistleblowers. To this day, child p0rnography remains available in the library despite claims that it is not, because the library follows ALA diktat to leave computers intended for adults unfiltered—since, per ALA diktat, librarians are not judges and cannot determine what is child p0rn.
This door-locking incident is part of a continuing pattern of obstruction of open government laws despite OMA section 1 which includes, “Policy. It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.” There is also the “right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.” Locking the board meeting doors at the scheduled start of the meeting, feigning ignorance of having done so, and using the library director to blame it on an errant singles event means the meeting was not open to the public. Blaming it on a simple error that might send people to the wrong room is beyond the pale. That is no reason to violate OMA. They could have simply put up a sign.
Please consider that library boards are required by law to follow the law, including OMA, then please review the actions of the OPPL library board to determine whether OMA violations occurred, and, if so, consider that each member of the board present that evening “shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.” That means Nancy
p.4
W. Healy, President; Denis P. Ryan, Vice-President; Diane I. Jennings, Treasurer; Catherine M. Lebert, Secretary; Christian Barcelona, Trustee; Joanna Leafblad, Trustee, and Elan Kleis, Trustee. A Class C misdemeanor in Illinois is a criminal offense, a crime. Each member of the library board should end up having a criminal record if an OMA violation has been found. Being elected to serve as a library trustee and committing a crime while serving in that capacity does not absolve anyone of any crime or the consequences thereof. At some point there has to be consequences for the library board’s continuing series of violations of open government laws, let alone other laws.
Lastly, as this issue of locking doors at the beginning of open public meetings may involve many public bodies, is so cut and dried, and as OPPL has stated advisory opinions do not constrain the library board, please consider writing a binding opinion.
Thank you for your consideration.
--
----------
Dan Kleinman
Library Watchdog at SafeLibraries
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928
[Elided]
|
|
See also:
NOTE ADDED 3 SEPTEMBER 2015:
Added another see also link.
Adding graphic of wanted poster:
Wanted: Orland Park Library Board for crime of violating Open Meeting Act:
Also, today I filed a FOIA request related to this matter:
Orland Park Public Library:
This is a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. I am a member of the media making a noncommercial FOIA request for documents to be produced to me electronically at my email address. The results of this FOIA production may be published for the public to see and may be part of an analysis done for what I am writing about the OPPL (Orland Park Public Library). The law provides five business days to comply.
Background:
Yesterday I published the following:
“Illinois Attorney General Investigates Crime by Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees”
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/09/Crime.html
Therefore, today I seek information related to the locking of the doors at the August library board meeting. I feel locking people out of supposedly public meetings and committing a crime in doing so by violating the Open Meetings Act is very newsworthy, especially for a public library that covered up child p0rnography and was given "intellectual freedom" awards as a result, and I want to research the matter as best I can so that I may be as accurate and informative as possible when I write about this.
I am also very curious why your paid lawyer from Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins did not act to prevent the library board from committing yet another in a string of crimes while being represented by KTJ. I am hoping to elucidate that as well, also for publication. This is especially relevant as that law firm trains and will again be training at the Illinois Library Association on the very issue it failed to act upon, and it represents many libraries.
FOIA Request:
I require the following to be produced pursuant to the FOIA:
1) All communications within the past year of any kind (and if emails all BCCs and identify of each recipient in any distribution lists in TO, CC, or BCC) related to the doors.
Your response should include everything. By way of example, this should include communications about the doors going to be locked, actually locked, or having been locked, and it should include communications with anyone in the American Library Association, the Illinois Library Association, the Orland Park Police, the Village of Orland Park, and especially Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins. It should also include internal communications between the board and the staff, the library director and the board, the library director and the staff, the library director and the maintenance engineer, and vice versa, etc. It should also include communications with the PAC that is now investigating you, any media such as the Chicago Tribune, any contractors such as locksmiths, any singles group that was mistakenly scheduled to use the room, or any library patrons who may have complained about the doors. All communications. Of any kind. Within the past year. Related to the doors.
2) All communications within the past year of any kind (and if emails all BCCs and identify of each recipient in any distribution lists in TO, CC, or BCC) related not specifically to the doors, but as a result or effect of the doors going to be, being, or having been locked.
Your response should include everything. By way of example, this should include communications about the the result or effect of the doors going to be locked, actually locked, or having been locked, and it should include communications with anyone in the American Library Association, the Illinois Library Association, the Orland Park Police, the Village of Orland Park, and especially Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins. It should also include internal communications between the board and the staff, the library director and the board, the library director and the staff, the library director and the maintenance engineer, and vice versa, etc. It should also includes communications with the PAC that is now investigating you, any media such as the Chicago Tribune, any contractors such as locksmiths, any singles group that was mistakenly scheduled to use the room, or any library patrons who may have complained about the result or effect of the doors going to be or actually locked, or having been locked. All communications. Of any kind. Within the past year. Related to the result or effect of the doors going to be locked, actually locked, or having been locked.
3) All legal bills for any work of any kind related to the doors or the result or effect of the doors going to be, actually, or having been locked.
4) All legal bills for the time Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins worked on anything at all for the library on the day of the board meeting.
5) All policies written on circumstances under which the doors of library board meetings may be locked before or during the library board meetings. This is restricted to doors that lock out the public from meetings, not the doors related to library boards going into executive session.
6) All communications within the past month of any kind (and if emails all BCCs and identify of each recipient in any distribution lists in TO, CC, or BCC) by anyone related to any singles group or event.
Your response should include everything. By way of example, information I am seeking will help me answer whose fault was the room booking mixup? Was this an error by the person who was supposed to book the rooms? Did the library director intervene in any way? Why were there no signs printed and posted to redirect people? When are the normal meeting dates, times, and locations for the singles group? What was the errant message to or about the singles group? Where was it scheduled to meet on the night of the board meeting, errantly or not? What is the URL of the calendar patrons can view to see a schedule of events? Were and postings made to the library’s Facebook page about the event and what is the URL?
Thank you for your time and attention.
Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog
