'Chief, Clear The Room': Orland Violated Open Meetings Act, AG Says
ORLAND PARK, IL — Orland Park Mayor Keith Pekau’s decision to “clear the room” during a heated Village Board meeting in February violated the Open Meetings Act, the Illinois Attorney General’s office has determined.
During the Feb. 5 Village Board meeting, more than a half-dozen Arab American residents spoke, imploring Pekau and the Orland Park Board of Trustees to adopt a resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war. After several addressed the Board, the meeting grew raucous, with chants of “ceasefire now!”
Tensions in the room rose, with Pekau ultimately and abruptly calling for a recess and asking the police chief to remove the audience from the room. Pekau reconvened the meeting a half-hour later, video shows, then speaking to a mostly empty room. Pekau angered some with his remarks at the same meeting, where he expressed his loyalty to the United States and advised that anyone with differing opinions “go to another country and support that country.”
Find out what's happening in Orland Parkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
<< READ ALSO: Orland Mayor’s ‘Go To Another Country’ Remark Draws Heat >>
A day after the meeting, a complaint was filed by resident Michael Henry, asking Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s to investigate and alleging Pekau and the Board “forcibly removed residents of Orland Park from the meeting.” Attendees “were forced to leave” the meeting after a petition calling for the cease-fire resolution was read, and the public pleaded with the Board.
Find out what's happening in Orland Parkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The Open Meetings Act states, “it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly,” and that “members of the public have “the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.” It calls for “not ‘absolute accessibility’ but ‘reasonable accessibility,” reserving room that the head of a public body “may generally take measures to preserve decorum and ensure that a meeting is conducted in an orderly and efficient manner.”
Raoul’s office reports that on Feb. 16, 2024, a copy of the Request for Review to the Board was sent to Pekau and the Board, who were asked to provide the attorney general’s office with a written response addressing the allegation that the meeting was not open to the public. The office also requested copies of the that meeting’s agenda, minutes and verbatim recording of the open session portion of the meeting, if available. Having received no response, Raoul’s office sent additional correspondence to the Board on March 1, again asking it to respond. On March 21, they received the requested materials, which included links to a posted video recording and audio file of the meeting.
In a response to the allegations, Pekau and the Board said:
While the video and audio speak for themselves, there are several salient points to emphasize. First, the clearing of the boardroom occurred after the conclusion of all public business and after ensuring that everyone interested had an opportunity to speak during the public comment period. However, the Board of Trustee’s comment session was repeatedly disrupted by the audience who ignored several pleas from Mayor Pekau to maintain decorum. Consequently, the Mayor was compelled to call for a recess and clear the room, in an effort to restore order and proceed with the governmental process.
The Board said it had listened to members of the public without interruption, but audience members then “persistently attempted to interrupt, shout down, and heckle members of the Board of Trustees during the subsequent Board comment period, severely undermining the public meeting’s decorum and efficacy.”
Henry, in his response to the Board’s assertions, claimed they had overstepped in removing all attendees. He alleged that removing the public from the meeting was planned, as eight police officers were present.
“The law allows them to remove disruptive speakers,” Henry wrote. “The videos show over 80 people in attendance at the meeting. The Village readily admits that only a few speakers were disruptive.”
Raoul’s office determined that in its abrupt call for a recess, the Mayor and Board prevented the public from attending the remainder of the meeting.
Click Here: Russia soccer tracksuit
“Although a public body is not required to tolerate interruptions and does not violate OMA by removing disorderly attendees who meaningfully disrupt the proceedings, the Board here abruptly entered a recess after the mayor warned the audience that “[w]e will remove the room so we can continue to have our meeting,” the ruling reads.
“‘We’re recessed. Chief, clear the room,'” video shows the mayor saying.
“The Board then waited 30 minutes” (before reconvening), the Attorney General’s ruling reads. “These statements and actions indicate that the meeting was recessed for the purpose of removing all attendees so the meeting could resume without members of the public present, rather than removing only the attendees who had disrupted the meeting.
“Members of the public could not have reasonably inferred that they would have been permitted to access the meeting room after the recess.”
By ordering the room to be emptied, “the Board effectively closed the meeting to the public even though most of the attendees had not disrupted the proceeding,” the Attorney General’s office ruled.
No punitive action was taken, but Pekau and the Board were advised to do things differently moving forward.
“If the Board recesses any meetings in the future to address disruptions,” the ruling reads, “it should do so in a manner that ensures members of the public who did not cause the disruptions are able to attend the meeting when it resumes.”
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.