[ Search ] [ PDF text ] [ Legislation ]
[ Home ] [ Back ] [ Bottom ]
| [ Introduced ] | [ Engrossed ] | [ Enrolled ] |
| [ House Amendment 001 ] | [ House Amendment 002 ] | [ Senate Amendment 001 ] |
92_HB3098gms
STATE OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
SPRINGFIELD, 62706
GEORGE H. RYAN
GOVERNOR
February 8, 2002
To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois House of Representatives
92nd General Assembly
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Governor by
Article IV, Section 9(e) of the Illinois Constitution of
1970, and re-affirmed by the People of the State of Illinois
by popular referendum in 1974, and conforming to the standard
articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court in People ex Rel.
Klinger v. Howlett, 50 Ill. 2d 242 (1972), Continental
Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. v. Zagel, 78 Ill. 2d 387
(1979), People ex Rel. City of Canton v. Crouch, 79 Ill. 2d
356 (1980), and County of Kane v. Carlson, 116 Ill. 2d 186
(1987), that gubernatorial action be consistent with the
fundamental purposes and the intent of the bill, I hereby
return House Bill 3098 entitled "AN ACT concerning meetings
of public bodies," with my specific recommendations for
change.
House Bill 3098 amends the Open Meetings Act to require
the presiding officer of a closed meeting of a public body to
certify that the closed meeting discussion did not violate
the Open Meetings Act. The bill provides the specific
statutory form to be used for the certification, and requires
that the certification be made available for inspection and
copying within seven working days after the meeting.
I have been contacted by over one hundred local officials
and local government associations regarding their concerns
and questions with respect to this legislation. I believe
many of these concerns are valid.
One concern is regarding the certification by the
presiding officer that the closed meeting did not violate the
Open Meetings Act. House Bill 3098 fails to address the
scenario when a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act
does occur. If a presiding officer believes a violation did
occur, and refuses to sign the certification, he or she would
be in violation of the law. If, however, the presiding
officer did sign the certification and the meeting did indeed
violate the Open Meetings Act, the officer would again be in
violation of the law. A change is necessary to protect a
presiding officer who acts in good faith by refusing to sign
the certification making him or her personally liable. Such a
change would comply with the intent of House Bill 3098
because failure to file the certification would alert the
public to a potential violation of the Open Meetings Act and
prompt the current enforcement proceedings in the Act.
This bill further requires the presiding officer to
certify that he or she understands Section 2 of the Open
Meetings Act. There are 23 exceptions in this section that
allow a public body to hold a closed meeting and many of
these exceptions are subject to legal interpretation. The
presiding officer at these meetings is seldom an attorney,
and I can not sign a law that would burden local government
officials to interpret such a complicated law. This burden
would create confusion and may act as a disincentive to many
Illinois citizens who volunteer their time and talents to
serve in government.
Therefore, in order to avoid unintended consequences and
to limit the burdens that may be placed on local officials, I
hereby return House Bill 3098 with the following specific
recommendations for change:
On page 2, line 2, by inserting ",if it is the
case," after "writing"; and
On page 3, line 2, delete the word "UNDERSTAND" and
replace with the words "HAVE READ".
With these changes, House Bill 3098 will have my
approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
Sincerely,
s/GEORGE H. RYAN
Governor