JUSTICE WELCH delivered the opinion of the court:

Debra Powell, Martha E. Young, and Marlene E. Smoot (petitioners) appeal from anorder of the circuit court of St. Clair County affirming the decision of the Board of ElectionCommissioners of the City of East St. Louis (Board) to invalidate petitioners' nominationpapers. For the following reasons, we affirm.

On December 16, 2002, petitioner Powell filed nomination papers for reelection tothe office of mayor of the City of East St. Louis, and petitioners Young and Smoot filed forthe election to the office of city council, to be voted on at the consolidated primary electionon February 25, 2003. On December 20, 2002, Karen Cason, Eddie Lee Jackson, andEdward Russell (respondents) filed objections to petitioner Powell's nomination papers,alleging that petitioner Powell had failed to file, with her nomination papers, a receipt forthe filing of a statement of economic interests with the St. Clair County clerk. RespondentsCason and Russell filed objections to the nomination papers of petitioners Young andSmoot, alleging that each candidate had failed to file a statement of economic interests withthe St. Clair County clerk and had failed to file, with their nomination papers, a receipt forthe filing of a statement of economic interests with the St. Clair County clerk. See 10 ILCS5/10-8 (West 2000).

On December 30, 2002, Board members and respondents Barbara Greenwood, FannieJones, and Elmer D. Jones conducted a public hearing regarding the objections. Before theBoard, the parties stipulated that petitioner Powell had filed a statement-of-economic-interests receipt but that the receipt was not file-stamped by the St. Clair County clerk andthat petitioners Young and Smoot had each failed to file a statement of economic interestswith the St. Clair County clerk. After argument, the Board adjourned the hearings andannounced that it would deliberate in a closed session.

On December 31, 2002, the Board sustained the objections to petitioners' nominationpapers and ordered that, in the February 25, 2003, election, petitioner Powell's name shallnot appear on the ballot as a candidate for mayor and that the names of petitioners Youngand Smoot shall not appear on the ballot as candidates for the city council.

Petitioners filed their petitions for the judicial review of the Board's decision, andafter a hearing on January 24, 2003, the circuit court affirmed the Board's findings anddecision. The circuit court held that the Board's decision was not against the manifestweight of the evidence. The court also held that in a judicial review proceeding under theElection Code (10 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 2000)) the circuit court did not have theauthority to entertain allegations of violations of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 etseq. (West 2000)). On January 30, 2003, petitioners filed their notices of appeal from thedecision of the circuit court.

Petitioners assert that in invalidating their nomination papers, the Board abused itsdiscretion, the Board's sanction was overly harsh, the Board's decision was based onprecedent that was distinguishable and not controlling, and the Board's decision was abusivebecause the candidates substantially and in good faith complied with the election laws.

Section 10-5 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"If the nomination papers of any candidate and the statement of economic interest ofthat candidate are not required to be filed with the same officer, the candidate mustfile with the officer with whom the nomination papers are filed a receipt from theofficer with whom the statement of economic interests is filed showing the date onwhich such statement was filed. Such receipt shall be so filed not later than the lastday on which nomination papers may be filed." 10 ILCS 5/10-5 (West 2000).

In Bolger v. Electoral Board of the City of McHenry, 210 Ill. App. 3d 958, 959-60(1991), the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the above-quoted Election Codeprovision, prescribing the time limit for filing a receipt from the officer with whom thestatement of economic interests was filed, did not make it mandatory to file the receipt. InBolger, although the plaintiff filed his nomination papers with the city clerk and filed hisstatement of economic interests with the county clerk, he did not file with the city the receipthe had received from the county when he filed his statement of economic interests. Bolger,210 Ill. App. 3d at 959. The election board in Bolger had determined that the filing of thereceipt with the local election official is mandatory and that Bolger's failure to do soinvalidated his nomination papers; the board refused to allow his name to be on the ballot. Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 959-60 ("must" is reflective of a mandatory requirement); see alsoDeFabio v. Gummersheimer, 307 Ill. App. 3d 381 (1999), aff'd, 192 Ill. 2d 63 (2000) (courtsmust enforce mandatory requirements substantially contributing to the integrity of theelection process).

In reviewing the board's decision, the court in Bolger stated as follows:

"It is absolutely clear from the language used by the legislature that plaintiffwas required to file the receipt he received from the county with the local electionofficial sometime during the period in which his nomination papers could be filed. The failure to do so left his nomination papers incomplete. *** [P]laintiff's failureto comply with this requirement renders his nomination papers invalid." (Emphasisin original.) Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 960.

Following Bolger, we reject petitioner Powell's contentions that invalidating hernomination papers for failing to file a file-stamped receipt for the filing of a statement ofeconomic interest was overly harsh or that the Election Code does not expressly authorizethe Board to invalidate her nomination papers if a receipt, filed-stamped by the county clerk,does not accompany her nomination papers filed with the city. We also reject petitionerPowell's argument that Bolger is distinguishable because she filed a receipt with theappropriate office, although it had not been file-stamped by the county clerk. PetitionerPowell was required "to file the receipt [she] received from the county with the localelection official" (Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 960), and the receipt must indicate "the dateon which such statement was filed" with the county clerk (10 ILCS 5/10-5 (West 2000)). This she did not do.

Alternatively, petitioners argue that because they "substantially and in good faithcomplied with the applicable election laws," their removal from the ballot "for merelytechnical violations is abusive." In her capacity as a public officeholder petitioner Powellhad previously filed a statement of economic interests with the St. Clair County clerk. Shehad also timely filed with the Board her nominating papers and a receipt evidencing thefiling of a statement of economic interests with the county clerk, although that receipt wasnot file-stamped by the county clerk. Petitioners Young and Smoot each filed a statementof economic interests with the Board but not with the St. Clair County clerk. While we mayagree with petitioners' argument that they "substantially and in good faith complied with theapplicable election laws," the argument that substantial compliance is sufficient wasspecifically rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court in DeFabio v. Gummersheimer, 192 Ill.2d 63, 66 (2000). Gummersheimer held that a mandatory provision of the Election Codemust be enforced even where parties agree there is no knowledge or evidence of fraud orcorruption. We are bound by the holding of Gummersheimer.

Petitioners were required "to file the receipt [they] received from the county with thelocal election official" (Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 960), and the receipt must indicate "thedate on which such statement was filed" with the county clerk (10 ILCS 5/10-5 (West2000)). In the case of petitioner Powell, the receipt was not file-stamped by the county clerkas having been received, and therefore, petitioner Powell's nomination papers wereincomplete. Petitioners Young and Smoot had neither filed with the county clerk astatement of economic interests nor filed with their nominating papers a receipt evidencingsuch filing. As in the case of petitioner Powell, their nomination papers were incomplete. Petitioners' failure to comply with the requirements of the Election Code rendered theirnomination papers invalid. Bolger is dispositive. Petitioners' claims fail.

Petitioners also argue that the Board deliberated in private at the hearing in violationof Illinois's Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2000)) and that, therefore, theBoard's decision to remove them from the ballot is null and void.

Section 2 of the Open Meetings Act requires that meetings of public bodies be heldin public, with certain exceptions. 5 ILCS 120/2 (West 2000). Assuming, arguendo, thatthe Board's deliberations in private were in violation of the Open Meetings Act, the OpenMeetings Act does not necessarily render the Board's proceedings null and void. See Peopleex rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff, 321 Ill. App. 3d 897, 908 (2001) (even when themeeting was closed to the public, the actions taken at it were not necessarily void); Boardof Education of Community Unit School District No. 337 v. Board of Education ofCommunity Unit School District No. 338, 269 Ill. App. 3d 1020, 1031 (1995) (even ifprivate deliberations violated the Open Meetings Act, the violation did not render theproceedings null and void); Betts v. Department of Registration & Education, 103 Ill. App.3d 654, 663 (1981) (although a public agency may have deliberated at a closed session, theactions taken at such a meeting are not necessarily null and void).

We would not condone violations of the Open Meetings Act; however, even if therewas a violation of that statute as alleged, we are unwilling to remand on the basis of such anerror. See Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 337, 269 Ill. App. 3dat 1031.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of St. ClairCounty.

Affirmed.

HOPKINS, P.J., and KUEHN, J., concur.

Opinion Filed: February 19, 2003

Justices: Honorable Thomas M. Welch, J.

Honorable Terrence J. Hopkins, P.J., and

Honorable Clyde L. Kuehn, J.,

Concur

Attorneys Beverly Powell, 2120 State Street, East St. Louis, IL 62205; Stephen P.McGlynn,

for 116 South Charles Street, Belleville, IL 62220

Appellants

Attorneys John J. Kurowski, Michael W. Tackett, Kurowski, Bailey & Shultz, P.C., 24 Bronze

for Pointe, Belleville, IL 62226 (for Barbara Greenwood, Fannie G. Jones, and ElmerAppellees D. Jones)

Robert E. Becker, Garrett P. Hoerner, Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C.,

5111 West Main Street, Belleville, IL 62226 (for Edward Russell, Karen Cason, and

Eddie Lee Jackson)