CAMPTON HILLS – The Campton Hills Village Board's censure of Village President Harry Blecker Oct. 18 for releasing closed meeting information to the media has no legal basis, said Donald Craven, an attorney for the Illinois Press Association.
Citing an Illinois Attorney General opinion from 1991, Craven said a public body has no authority to censure or otherwise discipline another member of the public body.
“The attorney general then was Roland Burris and it also dealt with some public body trying to censure somebody for blabbing about what happened at a closed meeting,” Craven said. “The village board does not have the authority to sanction the president. They can’t do that.”
In an email response, village attorney Julie Tappendorf, however, said the attorney general’s opinion stated that the Open Meetings Act did not provide for a sanction for violating closed session discussions.
“I agree that the [Open Meetings Act] does not prohibit disclosure of closed session discussions and contains no penalty or sanction for such disclosure,” Tappendorf’s email stated. “Boards do, however, have the authority to adopt rules of procedure to govern their own meetings, as well as the conduct of their own members.”
Tappendorf cited Roberts Rules of Order, which the board adopted to govern its meetings. It includes the authorization of a motion to censure “when a majority of a board desires to make a formal statement of disapproval against one of its members.”
Tappendorf’s email stated that a censure does not impose a sanction or fine against an elected official, nor can it result in disciplinary action or removal from office.
But Craven said a censure is a sanction – and the board did not have authority to do it.
“If I were that village president, I’d get a copy of that censure, make somebody sign and seal it, and then frame it as a badge of honor,” Craven said.
Blecker laughed when told of Craven's assessment of his censure.
“I saw the public’s reaction when I read my statement,” Blecker said.
As to whether Blecker was correct in suspecting the Sept. 28 meeting was a violation of the Open Meetings Act, Craven said it is legal for a board to go into closed session to talk about hiring a lawyer – without litigation being pending, probable or immanent.
“Whether there is litigation or no litigation, they can talk about hiring a lawyer – ‘Are we going to hire a lawyer and if so, which one?’” Craven said.
The actual hiring must be done in open session, Craven said, which the Village Board did.
“They do not have to say why,” Craven said. “But if, while in closed session, they are talking about the ‘why,’ that requires a finding that litigation is probable or immanent, and it has to be supported by the minutes of the closed meeting. If they do not want to sue anybody, then litigation is not immanent.”