Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney reviews Open and Public Meetings Act during commission training; outlines enforcement and recent changes
Summary
Kane County Attorney Rob Van Dyke briefed the Kane County Planning and Zoning Commission on the Open and Public Meetings Act, recent legislative changes including HB 36, enforcement mechanisms and when meetings are formally "convened." He also said he expects to remain county attorney until he takes a judicial bench appointment in March.
Rob Van Dyke, Kane County attorney, gave an overview of the Open and Public Meetings Act and recent changes to it at the Kane County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Feb. 12, 2025.
Van Dyke opened the session by telling commissioners, "I'll try to keep this short," and then outlined three pillars of the law: adequate notice, an open public process and keeping adequate records. He reviewed relevant case law, including Warrick v. Richfield City (a case about agenda specificity) and the Springdale case, and explained how those rulings affect agenda wording and compliance with local ordinances.
Why it matters: Van Dyke said the Legislature clarified the definition of what constitutes a "meeting" in HB 36 and strengthened the requirement that gatherings be formally convened by an authorized person following local process. He told the commission that the change means informal conversations among members are less likely to trigger the Open Meetings Act unless the group has been properly convened and is discussing a "relevant matter." He also described the new prohibition in the statute on taking "predetermined action" outside a convened meeting.
Van Dyke explained enforcement options for violations: criminal penalties (class B misdemeanor) require a knowing or intentional violation and are rare; more commonly enforcement is civil, where courts can void actions and award attorney fees. He noted a 90-day filing window for civil suits challenging a meeting.
Commissioners asked practical questions. Commissioner Lara Claisen asked whether members may ask each other individually for opinions and later decide at a convened meeting; Van Dyke said that is allowed so long as members do not reach a predetermined outcome while informal conversations are occurring. Another commissioner asked whether a quorum is four for this seven-member board; Van Dyke confirmed that a quorum is four members.
In a closing procedural update, Van Dyke told the commission he expects to remain county attorney until he is sworn to a judgeship, which he said is likely in March pending a Senate vote scheduled for Feb. 27. He said the county commissioners will select a successor and that there will be a transition period.
Van Dyke offered to help guide the commission if a quasi-judicial closed session is needed for decision-making on specific applications.
