Recently, an appellate court in the Fifth District upheld a countywide sales tax implemented through the School Facility Occupation Tax Law. In doing so, the Court denied relief to an Open Meetings Act (OMA) challenge due to the plaintiffs’ failure to bring the claim within the statutory time frame.
In P and S Grain v. Williamson County, two plaintiffs sought to have a sales tax voided as well as a permanent injunction to prevent any further collection of the tax. Plaintiffs alleged that the County Board passed the sales tax in violation of the OMA (55 ILCS 102/1 et seq.). Specifically, plaintiffs contended that defendants’ meeting agenda titled “Superintendent of Schools Resolutions” was not specific enough to notify the public that the County Board would vote on the imposition of the sales tax, and that the ordinance exceeded the County's authority by granting a service occupation tax in addition to the proposed sales tax. The circuit court denied plaintiffs relief and held that the complaint was time-barred because it was not filed within 60 days after the alleged violations, as required by the Section 3 of the OMA.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that even though their complaint was filed 60 days after the alleged violations, it was still timely because it was filed within the entire 60 days of the State’s Attorney discovering the violations, who they allege did not become aware until after the judgment was entered. The Appellate Court reviewed Section 3 of the OMA that states in part “any person, including the State’s Attorney of the county in which the noncompliance violation occurs, may bring a civil action in the circuit court….prior to or within 60 days of the meeting alleged to be in violation, or within 60 days of the discovery of a violation by the State’s Attorney.” The Court held that this clause of the OMA was intended to create two time periods to apply to two different entities, private citizens and the office of the state’s attorney. As such, the Court upheld the lower court’s decision that plaintiffs’ claim was time-barred and made clear that OMA complaints by members of the public must be made within 60 days after the alleged violation by the public body.
The Court noted that even if the complaint was not time-barred, it would still fail because the subject matter of the meeting agenda was sufficient. The Court looked to Section 2.02(c) of the OMA that states “any agenda required shall set forth the subject matter of any resolution or ordinance that will be subject of final action….” After examining this clause of the statute, the Court concluded that “Superintendent of Schools Resolutions” on the meeting agenda was sufficient to inform the public of the general subject matter of the proposed sales tax. Finally, finding that the circuit court did not err in holding the ordinance as valid, the Court also found that any errors that did exist with regard to the specificity of the meeting agenda were harmless.
* Jamel Greer is a first year associate at Franczek Radelet, and will be sworn in to the Illinois bar on November 6.
