The Illinois attorney general’s office found Orland Park violated the Open Meetings Act in February when Mayor Keith Pekau cleared a Village Board meeting after several people called for a resolution supporting a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war.
The Public Access Bureau, in a determination written by Teresa Lim, a supervising attorney, stated the village violated people’s “right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.”
Michael Henry, an Orland Park resident who works in business equipment leasing and banking, filed the complaint Feb. 6, stating Pekau forced attendees to leave the previous night’s meeting because some people presented a petition signed by 800 people calling for the village to back a cease-fire resolution.
Henry, who has filed other complaints of Open Meetings Act violations by the village, said he believed the decision to clear the meeting was premeditated, as eight police officers were present and Pekau made comments that those supporting the cease-fire resolution “can go to another country.”
“At these meetings, you can’t attack people,” Henry said Friday. “They’re entitled to an opinion. And Keith Pekau just seems to think that he is God.”
The meeting record shows Pekau called for a recess following the public comment. He earlier warned that “we will remove the room so we can continue to have our meeting,” as several attendees became “disruptive,” according to the attorney general’s decision.
Pekau said simply, “We’ve recessed. Chief, clear the room.” The meeting resumed 30 minutes later with only one person returning, which was by design, the attorney general’s office said.
“The meeting 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,” the determination states. “Members of the public could not have reasonably inferred that they would have been permitted to access the meeting room after the recess.”
The village’s response to the complaint said it listened to public comments without interfering, but attendees “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,” according to Lim’s finding.
The village’s response also contended the news media member who returned after recess documented the ongoing discussions and the village continued to live stream it, “affirm(ing) the village board’s commitment to transparency, allowing the public to stay informed without being physically present in the meeting space.”
Henry agreed some people’s actions were out of line, but said that wasn’t a valid reason to throw the entire audience out.
“They have rights to be there,” Henry said. “And then you turn around and basically call them everything under the sun.”
Pekau released a statement Friday saying that it was not “just a few” audience members who disrupted the meeting and said the attorney general’s report failed to take into account the “highly charged nature” of the discussion surrounding the war that “necessitated swift and decisive action to ensure the safety of all involved.”
He said the report’s inference the meeting was recessed to remove all attendees so the board could resume without the public present was unsupported and incorrect.
“The meeting was recessed only for the purposes of restoring order and ensuring a safe end to the meeting,” the statement read. “Anyone who wanted to return and was willing to maintain decorum would have been allowed to reenter the Board room and observe the end of the Board comment period.”
In March, the board approved an amendment to the village code for public participation in meetings, setting specific rules for attendee conduct.
Rules include requiring the first public comment period be limited to topics relevant to a particular agenda item for that meeting and the second comment period limited to “items relevant to village business.”
“Repetitive comments or arguments” are also not allowed, per the amendment. Any person who disrupts the board from village business can be removed from the meeting room and the mayor or chair can terminate the public comment session of any person who fails to follow the rules.
Henry lodged a complaint with the attorney general’s office, saying it is illegal for the village to limit the content of speech expressed during public comment, but it was denied due to him failing to identify a person whose speech was restricted by the requirement.
In the statement, Pekau stated that “blaring noise” is not the same thing as free speech and that people need to make sure to listen to others.
He said the Village Board will continue to maintain decorum in public proceedings, ensuring deliberations “will not be done by who can shout the loudest.
“Instead, deliberations will continue to be conducted in a respectful and thoughtful manner,” Pekau wrote.
ostevens@chicagotribune.com
Originally Published:
