Bill
HB 2752
Allows Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund committees to hold remote meetings with quorum, roll-call votes, public access, and records during health or safety risks.
Status & sponsor
- Bill: HB2752 (Illinois) — amends Section 22B‑117 of the Illinois Pension Code (Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund Article)
- Primary sponsor: Rep. Robert “Bob” Rita
- Introduced: February 6, 2025; first reading Feb 6, 2025. Subsequent actions: assigned to Rules Committee, Executive Committee, read in House (Feb–Mar 2025), referred to Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs (Mar 19, 2025), then re‑referred to Rules (Mar 21, 2025).
Overview / purpose
- The bill authorizes committees of the Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund board to hold meetings by audio or video conference (remote participation) without the physical presence of a quorum under specified conditions, to allow continued operation when in‑person meetings would pose a health or safety risk. It adds procedural safeguards intended to preserve transparency, public participation, and recordkeeping.
Key provisions
- Scope: Applies to meetings of committees of the board (not explicitly changing full‑board meeting rules). Remote meetings remain subject to the Open Meetings Act (Section 2.06) and other applicable law.
- Triggering determination: The board chair must determine that an in‑person meeting would pose a risk to health or safety of board members or the public and that remote meeting is in the public interest. That reason must be stated in the public notice.
- Member participation: All participating board members (wherever located) must be able to be verified, hear discussion/testimony, and be heard. Members participating remotely are considered present for quorum and voting.
- Public access & comment:
- For open meetings, the public present at the meeting location must be able to hear discussion, testimony, and votes. If the public is not physically present, the committee must provide contemporaneous remote access (telephone or web link) and a method for public comment (telephone, web link, email, or written submission), with instructions in the notice.
- Notice must include access information (phone numbers, web links, meeting IDs, passcodes) and any specifics for submitting public comment.
- Physical presence at meeting site: At least one board member, the board’s legal counsel, or an administrative officer must be physically present at the meeting location.
- Voting & records:
- All votes must be roll call votes with each member’s vote identified and recorded.
- A verbatim audio or video record of meetings held under these provisions must be kept and made available to the public consistent with the Open Meetings Act.
- Notice timing: Except for bona fide emergencies, at least 48 hours’ notice required; notices must meet Open Meetings Act posting and media notification rules. If a bona fide emergency is declared, the presiding officer must state the nature of the emergency and the committee must comply with Section 2.06 of the Open Meetings Act.
- Costs: The board bears all costs associated with compliance (technology, recording, access).
Who is affected
- Primary: Committees of the Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund board, trustees, staff and counsel who administer board meetings.
- Secondary: Members of the public and media who attend or monitor committee meetings, and stakeholders relying on transparency (pension beneficiaries, municipal officials).
Procedural/implementation notes
- The bill modifies an existing statute (40 ILCS 5/22B‑117). It integrates with the Open Meetings Act; compliance with that Act’s public‑access and notice requirements remains necessary. No effective date is specified in the text provided.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Pros: Provides flexibility to continue committee business during health or safety events (e.g., pandemics), preserves public access through remote options, and requires roll‑call votes and recordings to support transparency.
- Cons/implementation needs: Requires reliable technology and funding (board bears costs), clear verification/authentication procedures for remote participants, and safeguards to ensure meaningful public participation (e.g., preventing technical barriers to comment). Legal scrutiny may focus on whether all statutory open‑meeting requirements are satisfied in practice.
Note about mixed/duplicate content
- The materials provided also include a different HB 2752 (Arizona) concerning a $300 nonresident tuition surcharge and creation of an “Arizona Higher Education Financial Aid Program Fund.” That Arizona provision appears unrelated to the Illinois pension code bill described above and likely reflects a clerical merge of two distinct bills with the same number in different states. This summary focuses on the Illinois pension/meetings bill (PEN CD — A/V conference) requested by title and legislative actions.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
