The Thursday night meeting of the McHenry County College Board had some fireworks.
The biggest was the Board’s failure to extend College President Vicky Smith’s contract for another year.
The vote was a 3-3 tie and, under Robert’s Rules of Order, ties fail.
Linda Liddell, Cynthia Kisser and Molly Walsh voted in favor, while Ron Parrish, Tom Wilbeck and Chris Jenner voted “No.” Student Trustee Justin Peters also voted in favor, but his is only an advisory vote.
Board member Mary Miller did not attend the meeting.
Today, an agenda has appeared for a meeting to take another vote next Wednesday night. You can see the agenda below:
I didn’t think it would get past Wilbeck.
He’s an honorable man!
Thank you all that voted NO.
You are doing the job you were elected to do.
Who put this issue back on the agenda?
Can a matter be voted on over and over again until a predetermined result occurs?
There is a fundamental problem when elected officials vasilate on thier decisions.
To reconsider a previously voted upon issue a rule ought to be adopted to requrie a super majority.
The fact that this is back on the agenda less than a week later demonstrates a pre-determined conclusion that the contract will be approved is at play.
Any idea what the sticking points for Parish, Wilbeck and Jenner were? Too rich in general, or is there a particularly objectionable provision in the proposed deal?
The ” NO ” vote was the right vote.
Great news.
Thank you nay sayers!
Since there is going to be another meeting, are they all going to show up…….or will they make Parrish, Wilbeck and Jenner stay home ?
Ron Parrish needs to get an opinion on Robert’s Rules of Order from someone other than Vicky Smith’s pet attorney.
Under Robert’s Rules, an issue can only be brought up for a new vote by someone on the winning side.
This idea of placing an item on the agenda to rescind the action of last week’s board is an attempt to do an end run around a very explicit rule.
Similarly, the attorney’s opinion that the contract was “offered” by the board and “accepted” by Smith is highly suspect.
For municipalities, there is no action until there is board action.
Who the heck had the legal authority to “accept” the contract in a closed session?
No one.
Who in a Committee of the Whole?
No one.
Only at a regular board meeting can binding action be taken by the elected officials.
So how can the attorney say the contract was offered and accepted?
If that was the case, then what was the point of Thursday night’s motion?
I’m sorry, but the attorney’s reasoning doesn’t sound right to me.
Please leave Ms. Smith.
I would like Smith’s attorney, Nanci Rogers — excuse me, the BOARD’s attorney Nanci Rogers — to explain how the board could legally “offer” a binding contract without a vote?
Was that not the purpose of the motion at last Thursday’s meeting?
In what system of law is the actual board vote a mere “formality”?
The principle underscoring virtually all municipal law is “Dillon’s Rule” which makes clear that a municipality cannot be bound until it takes formal action, and it goes back to 1868.
Look it up
I, personally, have been in the municipal finance business for 35 years and I’ve never heard an attorney say a contract on which a board had not yet voted was binding on them and the actual vote was a “mere formality,” nor seen any contract considered binding by a municipality before the vote was taken.
Nor have I ever seen a court enforce a contract that was not approved by board action, either directly or by delegation to the appropriate employee.
Time to fire the attorney, too.
So is Vicki Smith going to be employed Thursday May 29th?
I could not attend the meeting tonight and am loathe to hear how it all turned out.
So very, ery disturbing…