City Council

AGENDA Committee of the Whole Meeting June 8, 2015 5:00 p.m. A. Roll Call B. Items Also on the Regular Agenda C. Considerations 1. Presentation of the New City Website. 2. Compliance with Open Meetings Act / Regulations Applicable to Public Bodies. D. Public Participation E. Recess for Executive Session of the City Council 1. Approval to Hold an Executive Session to Discuss the Purchase or Lease of Real Property as Provided for in 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5). F. Adjournment  C-1 June 8, 2015 DATE: June 3, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor John Rey City Council FROM: Anne Marie Gaura, City Manager Lauren Stott, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Presentation of the New City Website. I. Summary The City has executed an agreement with CivicPlus for a new website. The site is ready for presentation to City Council and will be launched to the public for general use later this week. This presentation will provide an overview of the site’s design and functionality. II. Background Since February, staff has been working with municipal website developer CivicPlus to create a new online home for the City. The new website includes state-of-the-art design, interactive modules and information for both residents and visitors. The new website will be updated regularly. An internal Website Team was assembled with members from each department. The website team helped plan for design, develop information and participated in a weeklong training exercise to learn how to edit the site. The Website Team includes not only website decision-makers, but representatives from each department who will be responsible for editing and content maintenance moving forward. Those staff members are: Jeremy Alexander Jessica Hyink Penny Meier Michelle Anderson Linda Jacobson Robert Miller Jeff Birtell Jake Keck Mary Riippi Tom Cleveland Pat Klein Jamie Smirz Brian Dickson Traci Lemay Doug Eaton Jeff McMaster Jared Heyn Chad McNett One fundamental change spurred by development of the new website has been the decentralization of website editing. Whereas current website editing is performed centrally by the Information & Technology Division, introduction of the new site activates the ability for each department to be responsible for its own site content. 1  C-1 June 8, 2015 The Website Team has been trained on various items that are not only beneficial to their departmental section, but to create an effective holistic website experience from all visitors. Examples of items that are new to the City’s site include an interactive mapping portal, a service request tool, an online job application area and a customizable City calendar. The City of DeKalb website is meant to be a dynamic product that changes to meet the needs of the community. As feedback on the site is processed, updates can easily be made at the staff level. City staff is excited to facilitate this increase in online service and functionality. III. Community Groups/Interested Parties Contacted The City of DeKalb hosted a series of three community workshops to determine what website features are most important to users. Staff asked workshop participants to describe website trends they like, features they find most useful and to provide other ideas to make the new website provide the highest value to users. Staff also developed a targeted survey for website users. Survey responses helped City staff determine what features to prioritize on the website and helped guide development. IV. Legal Impact DeKalb’s new website has been developed in accordance with the City’s agreement with the United States Department of Justice to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. V. Financial Impact The total cost of website development was $50,570. VI. Options Staff has worked closely to develop the new site based on feedback from residents and best practices provided by CivicPlus. The City Council is able to provide feedback to staff at any time regarding the site’s functionality. Implementation of recommended changes will be performed in-house by City of DeKalb staff to ensure effectiveness, timeliness and responsiveness. VII. Recommendation It is recommended that, after the website launch later this week, staff monitors the effectiveness of the City’s website. In the future, staff will be able to provide valuable statistics regarding visitor rates, popular pages and other items to will help gauge how well the site is working. Staff would be pleased to present a follow-up report once several months of website data is available. Page |2 2 Return to Agenda  C-2 June 8, 2015 DATE: June 3, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor John Rey City Council FROM: Dean Frieders, City Attorney SUBJECT: Compliance with Open Meetings Act / Regulations Applicable to Public Bodies I. Summary Based upon a recent inquiry regarding the conduct of Finance Advisory Committee meetings, an update regarding compliance with the Open Meetings Act and other regulations applicable to committee meetings is provided below. II. Background On May 27, 2015, the City Council and Finance Advisory Committee (“FAC”) had scheduled a joint meeting to discuss the City’s FY2016 Budget. The FAC is a seven-person committee, which constitutes a public body under the provisions of the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/1, et. seq. (“OMA”). For any public body, the law requires the identification of what constitutes a quorum, and what constitutes a majority of a quorum. By definition, a quorum is “the number, as a majority, of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business”, as listed in Webster’s Dictionary. From a legal perspective, for a public body, a quorum is a majority of the members of a public body. For example, in the case of the City Council, a quorum is defined as a majority of the Councilmembers both by state law (65 ILCS 5/3.1-40-20) and by City Code (Section 2.12). That same standard (a majority of the members of a body) is the standard definition utilized in dictionaries and in Robert’s Rules of Order. Under Robert’s Rules, even the definition of a majority vote requires that it be “a majority of votes cast by persons legally entitled to vote…at a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum is present.” Robert’s Rules of Order, Sec. 43, (9th Ed. 1990). Unless a public body has adopted rules permitting electronic participation in meetings, a quorum of the public body (i.e. a majority of the members) are required to be physically present at the meeting for the meeting to occur. If a quorum is not present, a meeting cannot be conducted, and any actions that a public body would attempt to take would be void. (Of note, in extreme circumstances, the law permits certain public bodies the ability to take very proscribed actions in the absence of a quorum; for example, if a quorum does not attend a City Council meeting, in 3  C-2 June 8, 2015 theory the members in attendance can open the meeting either to continue it to another date, or to compel the attendance of those not present.) Absent one of those extraordinary circumstances, there is no authority for the proposition that a public body can meet without a quorum physically present at the meeting. There is extensive authority for the proposition that a public body must have a quorum physically present to engage in lawful (i.e. not void) meetings. “It is a fundamental rule of parliamentary procedure, applicable as well to municipal and electing boards, that a majority of a body constituting of a definite number constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business…and it is equally well settled that a majority of a quorum has power to act. This rule derives from common law and is of universal application, unless modified by some statute or some controlling regulation or bylaw in the particular instance.” (Emphasis added). People ex rel. Compton v. Penn, 33 Ill.App.3d 372, 376 (5th Dist. 1975), citing Hill v. Ponder, 221 N.C. 58, 19 S.E.2d 5, 8 (1942). “A “quorum” is the number of assembled members that is necessary for a decision-making body to be legally competent to transact business. 59 Am.Jur.2d Parliamentary Law § 9 (2002). Under common law—a majority of a body constitutes a quorum (59 Am.Jur.2d Parliamentary Law § 9 (2002)) and, if a quorum is in attendance, a vote of a majority of those present is sufficient for valid action. This common-law rule has been followed in Illinois in the absence of clear statutory expression abrogating it.” (Emphasis added). Vill. of Oak Park v. Vill. of Oak Park Firefighters Pension Bd., 362 Ill. App. 3d 357, 367-68, (1st Dist. 2005). See also City of Champaign v. Madigan, 2013 Ill.App. 4th 120662, 372 Ill.Dec 787, 797 (4th Dist. 2013) (Holding, under the same definition, that a quorum is required for a body to be legally competent to transact business.) As noted above, in the absence of some specific alternate standard, Illinois follows the “fundamental rule of parliamentary procedure” which “derives from common law and is of universal application.” That universally applicable law is applicable to the FAC. OMA includes provisions defining a meeting, for purposes of that statute, as being a discussion of public business among a majority of a quorum of a public body. 5 ILCS 120/1.02. Under OMA, when a majority of a quorum of a public body are engaged in a contemporaneous discussion of public business (whether in person, telephonically or by other electronic means such as messaging, e-mail or chat), the meeting is required to be a public meeting, conducted in accordance with the notice requirements of the statute. A majority of a quorum is the smallest quantum of members of a public body that could effectively take action on an item at a properly convened meeting (where a quorum was present). Accordingly, OMA requires that any time there is a gathering of members of a public body in this size, the meeting of those members must be public. Page |2 4  C-2 June 8, 2015 OMA thus prescribes a threshold for when a meeting must be public; if a majority of a quorum of a public body is engaged in a discussion of public business, the discussion must occur at a public meeting. OMA does not, however, change the requirement that a quorum be physically present at the meeting. OMA does not indicate that a meeting can occur in the absence of a quorum. Rather, the language of OMA expressly recognizes that the threshold at which a discussion of business must be public is lower than the threshold at which a lawful meeting can actually occur. At one time, OMA indicated that the threshold for a public meeting was only when a quorum was engaged in a discussion of public business. That standard was amended many years ago to lower the threshold to a majority of a quorum. Thus, under the current provisions of OMA, public officials cannot engage in a discussion of public business, even when gathered in groups smaller than what would be required to constitute a quorum and actually hold a meeting. It should be noted that the threshold for a public meeting in the current version of OMA utilizes the terminology “majority of a quorum”, and does not provide any definition for quorum. Again, this is because OMA does not change the number of members of a public body required to actually hold a meeting—still a quorum (or majority of a body). As the FAC has seven members, a quorum of the FAC would be four members, and a majority of a quorum would be three members. Thus, any time three or more members of the FAC are engaged in a contemporaneous discussion of public business, under OMA, that discussion would be required to be held at a public meeting. However, as a quorum of the FAC is four members, in order to actually open and conduct a meeting, four members would be required to be present. At the May 27 meeting, three members of the FAC were present, and prior to the start of the meeting, staff engaged in a discussion with the Chair of the FAC regarding available options for the conduct of the meeting. As a quorum of the FAC (i.e. four members) were not present, the FAC could not conduct a meeting. However, as a majority of a quorum of the FAC (i.e. three members) were present, the FAC could not engage in a discussion of public business without conducting a public meeting. Thus, the available options were to either have at least one additional FAC member attend (to bring the meeting to a quorum), or to have one member of the FAC not participate in the meeting, so as to avoid creating a circumstance where a majority of a quorum of a public body were engaged in a discussion of public business without a meeting occurring. There was an inquiry as to whether members of the FAC could sit outside the Council Chambers watch the meeting on the television, and take turns addressing the City Council with their comments or concerns. Such an arrangement would appear to be utilizing electronic means to engage in a contemporaneous discussion of public business, without a meeting occurring, in violation of OMA. Staff has also received an inquiry regarding whether a member of the FAC could have sat in the audience and participated as a member of the public, speaking under public participation. There is no distinction in OMA between the public and private role of a public official. Any time a member of a public body is engaged in a discussion of public business, that member must ensure that his or her conduct complies with OMA, whether the discussion occurs in a public meeting or in the member’s own house. See, e.g. People ex rel. Difanis v. Barr, 83 Ill.2d 191 (1980) (Holding that public officials could not avoid application of OMA by claiming Page |3 5  C-2 June 8, 2015 that meeting of majority of a quorum of a public body, at a private residence, at which public business was discussed was undertaken in their private capacity as citizens or members of a political party). Ultimately, the FAC made a determination among its members as to who should participate in the meeting. As a fourth member was not able to attend to bring the meeting to a quorum, two FAC members participated in a City Council meeting. The City Council had a quorum present and was able to conduct a meeting, and this permitted a group smaller than a majority of a quorum from the FAC to provide feedback to the City Council. Again, the determination regarding who remained and participated in the meeting was made by the FAC. OMA does not change the threshold for the number of members of a public body required to constitute a quorum, and thus to have an actual meeting. Staff cannot recommend that a public body engage in a meeting without a quorum, mindful of the fact that the results of the meeting would be void and the public body would not be competent to transact business. It is unclear whether attempting to hold a meeting without a quorum present, and thus without the ability to lawfully open the meeting, would constitute an OMA violation. It certainly would constitute an unlawful meeting, as the public body would lack a quorum and would thus not be “legally competent to transact business.” The recommendation provided to the FAC regarding their meeting, as summarized herein, has been confirmed in discussions with both the Illinois Attorney General and the DeKalb County State’s Attorney. Both the Attorney General’s office and State’s Attorney’s office have agreed with the (relatively basic) principle that a quorum is required to be present in order to conduct a meeting of a public body. Of note, the recommendation that the FAC not attempt to conduct a (void) meeting without a quorum present was intended to comply with the law, and also to prevent the suggestion that public bodies could meet with less than a quorum present. For example, it would not seem to make sense to suggest that the City Council could conduct a meeting with only four Council members present (and with an eight person City Council, four would be a majority of a quorum). Attempting to conduct meetings without a quorum present would seem to reduce, rather than enhance the ability of members of a public body to participate meaningfully in the business of the public body. Page |4 Return to Agenda 6