Complaint filed by The Lansing Journal (Case 2026 PAC 94008) leads to binding opinion
Editor’s note: Typically journalists write articles in the third person, observing and reporting without inserting themselves into the story. In this case, however, I am reporting in the first person because I am directly involved, and manufacturing a third-person perspective makes the information less clear. Still, this article is a first-person presentation of my correspondence with the Public Access Bureau, a function of the Illinois attorney general’s office.
LANSING, Ill. — On July 20 the Illinois attorney general issued Binding Public Access Opinion 26-007, concluding that the Thornton Township Board violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) at its April 20, 2026, meeting. Because it is a binding opinion, this decision has the force of law unless it is overturned by a court.
The ruling means the board must vote again if it wants to create the five positions it voted on at the April 20 meeting. More broadly, it reinforces a basic principle of the Open Meetings Act: government bodies must tell the public in advance what significant actions they intend to take.
The opinion
The opinion was emailed as a 12-page PDF to The Lansing Journal on Monday, July 20. The opening paragraph reads in part:
“For the reasons discussed below, this office concludes that the Thornton Township (Township) Board of Trustees (Board) violated section 2.02(c) of OMA (5 ILCS 120/2.02(c) (West 2024) during its April 20, 2026, meeting by taking final action to approve the creation of five Township employment positions without setting forth the general subject matter of that action on the posted meeting agenda.”
This decision is the latest outcome of the Request for Review I submitted to the Public Access Bureau on April 21, following a Thornton Township Board meeting on April 20. The steps involved in that Request for Review were outlined in a June 19 article: “As requested, my email conversation with the Public Access Bureau about Thornton Township.”
Summarizing the opinion
For those interested, the original 12-page Binding Opinion PDF is available on our website for review and download:
Much of the document is a point-by-point summary of my request and all the communications that followed, including extensive legal descriptions, references, and citations. I used ChatGPT to better understand the legal language, then reviewed that analysis with Editor Meredith Shamburger and Reporter Carole Sharwarko, discussing the opinion together in person and by email before writing this summary.
To further summarize the attorney general’s summary, I’ll list the three arguments made by the Thornton Township Board (through their attorney) in response to my claim that they had approved five new employment positions without adequately notifying the public ahead of time:
- They said they had not taken “final action” regarding the five jobs at the meeting.
- They claimed the agenda item “Approval of Supervisor’s Report” provided sufficient notice to the public.
- They said Supervisor Harris’s verbal explanation before calling for the vote was an adequate “public recital” of the action being taken.
In the linked PDF, each of these arguments has its own section: Final Action, Sufficiency of the Agenda, and Public Recital.
I had expressed disagreement with all three of these arguments. The attorney general’s office agreed with me on points 1 and 2, and it agreed with Thornton Township on point 3. In other words, the attorney general ruled that the Thornton Township Board did take final action when it voted to create five new positions and that the agenda did not give the public sufficient notice that those positions would be considered. However, the attorney general also ruled that Supervisor Harris’s verbal explanation immediately before the vote satisfied the Open Meetings Act’s requirement for a public recital of the matter under consideration.
The binding opinion distinguishes between the agenda notice (before the meeting) and the public recital (immediately before final action). Both are required by the Open Meetings Act. The attorney general ruled that Supervisor Harris’s public recital regarding the new positions met the requirements of OMA, even though it was brief.
Making it right
The attorney general ordered the Thornton Township Board to vote again after posting a legally sufficient agenda. The ruling says:
In accordance with these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board is directed to remedy its violation of section 2.02(c) of OMA by re-voting on the approval of the creation of the new employment positions after posting a meeting agenda that sets forth the general subject matter of that proposed action. As required by section 3.5(e) of OMA, the Board shall either take the necessary action as soon as practical to comply with the directives of this opinion or shall initiate administrative review under section 7.5 of OMA. 5 ILCS 120/7.5 (West 2024).
They are legally obligated to either comply or challenge the opinion in court by seeking judicial review of the decision within 35 days.
The Lansing Journal will be reviewing upcoming agendas specifically for references to new employment positions. The attorney general has required the violation to be remedied “as soon as practical,” so the item could potentially be included on the agenda for the August 17 meeting.
Why this ruling matters
As Thornton Township Reporter Carole Sharwarko and I have mentioned in our videos about the board meetings, the reason public bodies are required to post agendas 48 hours before a meeting — and the reason The Lansing Journal publishes agendas for our readers — is because the public has a right to know what decisions their elected officials are making. A public meeting agenda lists the items the board will be discussing so that the public can choose to be present for those discussions. It is published ahead of time so that the public can make arrangements to be there.
By placing the vote under the agenda item “Approval of Supervisor’s Report,” the Board failed to give the public sufficient notice that it intended to vote on creating five new positions, according to the attorney general’s opinion.
Allow me to take off my reporter hat and add one personal note: For the attorney general’s office to reach this binding opinion affirms our work and rebuilds my hope that ordinary people can improve government transparency — in Thornton Township and maybe throughout Illinois.
Connecting with your Public Access Bureau
Each of us has the freedom (and responsibility) to contact the Public Access Bureau. The Public Access Counselors consider themselves a resource, and the ones I have dealt with have been very helpful. This page of the Illinois attorney general website provides explanations and contact info:
Connecting with Thornton Township
Thornton Township Board meetings are typically scheduled for 6 p.m. on the third Monday of each month at Thornton Township headquarters, 333 East 162nd Str., South Holland, Ill. They are typically held in the upstairs board room and broadcast to the downstairs community room which is available for overflow seating.
The Lansing Journal is always there, and we would love to have other members of the public and local media there with us.
The Thornton Township meetings calendar published last December lists the full calendar of 2026 meetings and township holidays.
Agendas and minutes from Thornton Township public meetings are often posted on the township website:
Leave a Reply