The Calumet City Council followed protocol and had the city's best interests in mind when it passed an amended alcohol ordinance earlier this month, said an alderman who voted for the measure.

However, the Illinois attorney general has received an inquiry into the matter and will determine whether the City Council met the requirements of the state's Open Meetings Act, Terry Mutchler, the attorney general's public access counselor, said in an e-mail.

Following a closed session at a May 3 special meeting, the City Council adopted the ordinance, which reduces the hours of operation on liquor licenses.

On Tuesday, members of the newly-formed Cal-City Bar Owners Association rallied against the ordinance, calling the lack of open discussion a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Cynthia Pallick, alderman for the 7th Ward, said at the meeting that the ordinance was discussed in executive session but the council was "not trying to hide anything" and agendas were available.

The state's Open Meetings Act provides an exception for meeting in executive session when litigation is possible. The exception was listed on the agenda.

Edward Gonzalez, alderman for the 1st Ward, who voted in favor of the ordinance, said that is what took place.

"That ordinance was not discussed in length in executive session," he said. "What was discussed was potential litigation. We know we get sued for everything we do."

Beth Bennett, director of government relations for the Illinois Press Association, said such action is a misinterpretation of the Open Meetings Act and discussing the ordinance behind closed doors is a "clear violation."

"(That exemption) says you can only go into closed session if there is the imminent threat or actual litigation," Bennett said. "If that theory were to hold true, you could go into session about anything you did. ... They hadn't even done anything yet to be sued over."

Calumet City Attorney Burt Odelson wouldn't discuss any details about why it was appropriate for executive session.

"I can't comment because nothing is supposed to be revealed in closed session," Odelson said. "We went into closed session for proper reasons on my advice, and that's the end of the story."

At least two aldermen have voiced concerns about Pallick's comments to bar owners. Gonzalez called the comments a strong violation of ethics, and during Thursday's Calumet City Council meeting, 3rd Ward Alderman Thaddeus Jones read a draft of a resolution calling for the censure of Pallick to be placed on the next agenda.

It is not illegal to discuss what is discussed in closed session, Bennett said. Officials have to be careful they don't violate the privacy rights of individuals, but they have a First Amendment right to discuss it, she said.

Pallick said she didn't divulge anything about the actual discussion and was trying to make the point that the topic was posted openly on the agenda.

Bar owners are scheduled to meet privately with Mayor Michelle Markiewicz Qualkinbush on Tuesday.