Oak Brook Agency Backs Off Threat – Sort Of

OAK BROOK, IL – The Oak Brook Park District appears ready to back off its strongest language in threatening board members with possible criminal prosecution if they reveal closed-door discussions.

But the district is poised to stick to its false claim that members could face criminal penalties if they do so.

At a meeting Monday night, the Oak Brook park board plans to vote on proposed changes to the minutes of its May 19 closed session.

The proposed revisions come two weeks after Patch reported on inaccuracies in the meeting minutes and the district lawyer's advice.

No criminal law applies to disclosing closed-door discussions.

On Thursday, Laure Kosey, the district's executive director, emailed the board about the proposed changes. She said an employee who drafted the minutes "did her best," but inaccuracies needed to be corrected.

In the minutes, attorney Steve Adams of the Chicago-based Robbins Schwartz law firm was said to have issued a "grave warning" that any disclosure of information from a closed session may be subject to "prosecution under federal and state perjury laws." Such violations could be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," the minutes stated.

At the same time, the park district's proposed minutes would keep the part of Adams' statement about how such disclosures could result in civil and criminal penalties.

The meeting's audio showed that Adams never said anything about perjury and never used the words "prosecution" or "prosecuted," but he did mention criminal and civil penalties.

In an interview earlier this month, Adams could point to no criminal law that prohibits disclosures from closed meetings. A watchdog group says no such criminal punishment exists.

Kosey declined to comment when reached Monday afternoon, saying the minutes were before the board that night.

The warning about closed meetings was made behind closed doors. The board later decided to release the minutes and the audio.

In closing the doors, the board cited the exception under state law that allows closed sessions for the removal of a person from public office if a public body has the power to take such action.

Some members expressed concern that their colleague, Mario Vescovi, had missed several meetings. In response, he detailed the health reasons why he was absent.

Members then acknowledged they had no ordinance under which they could remove a member who misses what they see as too many meetings. Members said they wanted the attorney to draft one.

At the end of the meeting, Adams issued his warning.

Besides the threat of criminal penalties, Adams said, "You violate the Open Meetings Act if you speak about things occurring in closed session."

That's a common misconception. The open meetings law does not bar members from disclosing what was said. The act includes no civil or criminal penalties for breaching secrecy.

The exceptions that allow closed sessions do not prevent public bodies from keeping the doors open.