McHenry County Blog

Dorr Township Attorney Mark Saladin and Supervisor Bob Pierce

“Filled to capacity” is how one person in attendance last night at the Dorr Township meeting.

The Dorr Township Hall meeting room is small, so that meant about 25 residents were present.

The biggest news was that Supervisor Bob Pierce was granted permission to enter negotiations for the purchase of land, which he said would not be purchased without having a special meeting to get elector approval.

Note that a special meeting is not the same as the annual town meeting, which is usually the best attended meeting of the year.

Pierce said residents “would be surprised.”

Steven Kaiser makes his points.

“Dorr is the fourth largest township with the smallest hall!” he observed.

Legat Architects was also hired to provide “pre-referendum services.”

Public comments came early on with Steve Kaiser, a member of the now-disbanded Dorr Township Citizens Committee, asking about why “soil borings” was changed to “architects.”

Those March 9th soil borings were not presented to the board by the Road Commissioner Tom Thurman because he wanted to seek assistance interpreting them.

With trustees and audience members putting in their two cents about whether the minutes reflected what had occurred at the previous meeting, the exchange got heated.

“This is not going to become another Grafton Township,” Township Supervisor Bob Pierce said.

During the Public Comment section, the Supervisor and Trustees questioned former members of the Dorr Citizens group who presented the petition to rebate taxes. Questions asked included -

1.       How the $1 million number was determined? The officials were told the citizens thought that was the rebate needed to allow a responsible amount to be left over after paying for modifications to garage site and building. After the $1 million rebate, $1.75 million would remain for needed work.

2.       Do you know how difficult and expensive it could be to track down all current and former residents to distribute rebate? Resident Jane Collins explained that in Bourbonnais (a Kankakee County Township) the amount which could not be returned had been given to charitable organizations, after a citizen-initiated motion at an annual town meeting.

Dorr Township Board and attorney

The citizens who proposed the rebate were also asked they thought about the McHenry County Conservation District’s building a visitor center.

Such an argument reminds me of how Grafton Township Trustee Gerry McMahon once listed local governmental entities that had built new administrative facilities—the Huntley School District, the Village of Huntley, McHenry County—as justification for a new Grafton Township Hall.

Township Road Commissioner Tom Thurman suggested some members of the Citizens Committee had “a hidden agenda.” He also said, “We know more than…” the Citizens Committee about what needs to be done.

“You don’t listen to us.”

That prompted a resident Larry Oakford to stand up to chide Thurman, saying his “demeanor is unseemly” and that comments about a hidden agenda were inappropriate. The man also asked about making use of existing space.

Trustee Mark Andersen said the board had been real conservative and was trying to “not drop a bomb on taxpayers.”

The board admitted it had been gradually accumulating funds so they wouldn’t have to go to referendum.

Citizen reading report at the Dorr Township meeting

Everyone knows how hard it is to pass a referendum, Road Commissioner Thurman said.

“The burden is on you to provide a justification about what you do,” Collins suggested, adding that some would say they had been borrowing from the taxpayers without their knowledge and permission since 2002, that what the referendum proposes is a way to pay back some of that loan to the taxpayers.

Thurman said the officials know how to do their job, that citizens shouldn’t be telling them how to do it.

Sue Brokaw, who is bookkeeper and does the General Assistance for Pierce, told the audience they should come to the levy meetings, and so they could do something before the township gets the money instead of complaining about it now.

Board members admitting they had discussed the three building project items “individually” before the meeting.

Vivian Sodini, member of the Dorr Planning Committee, asked why the trustees hadn’t taken the time before last night’s meeting to discuss the details of the recommendations with the committee.

Trustee Joseph Evanoff replied that they didn’t need to because, “We can read.”

When it was revealed that the architects had never been given our report, but had been given a scornful letter written by the one member of the citizens planning committee who thought our only job was to look for land, the audience was stunned. That same member, Ted Anderson, also interviewed architects with Trustee Barry Lamb.

Dorr Township Hall

In discussing one petition question citizens had submitted, it was revealed that the 600 ton capacity included for a new salt shed was based on faulty information. The needed amount being about 4,000 tons, that number was inserted in the question.

“You should have the entire year’s supply” at the start of the season, Road Commissioner Thurman said.

The board decided to put that question to the electors of the annual township meeting.

Members of the disbanded Dorr Township Planning Committee will be allowed make a presentation to electors at the annual meeting, provided they clearly specify they are doing so as electors and not members of the committee.

The meeting will probably be at the High School on South Street in order to hold a larger number of attendees.

Supporters of building a new township hall were also in attendance.

Grafton Township resident Tammy Lueht asks Township Trustees why they have not appointed the township planning committee approved at last April's Annual Town Meeting.

At the Monday budget hearing Grafton Township residents asked why a Township Planning Commission had not been appointed. Apparently, applicants were solicited and received. This was also the topic of a motion at the last Annual Meeting of the township’s electors.

Now, McHenry County Blog has discovered that Dorr Township—just to the north of Grafton—has such a Citizens Planning Committee and it made a report last September 1st. The report looks at each of the offices and make recommendations which do not include consolidation of operations in one location.

Dorr Township Hall

It appears township officials have been accumulating funds for the purpose of building a new township complex.

The citizen committee recommends asking residents what to do with it. One option would apparently be building a new township hall (while that description is no where used in the report) or rebating the money through the lowering of levies.

Note that the Dorr Township Supervisor Robert Pierce has concerns about privacy similar to the ones expressed by Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore.

I thought others might find it of interest.

TRANSMISSION MEMORANDUM

TO: Dorr Township Board of Trustees

FROM: Dorr Township Citizens Planning Committee

SUBJECT: Report of Recommendation

DATE: Submitted to the Board on September 1, 2009
CC: Township Officials

All recommendations with the exception of those for the Road Commissioner are considered short term while the economy remains unsettled and tax revenues decline. The goal is to use current facilities more efficiently while providing essential town services. Every entity – both private and governmental – is trying to be more resourceful and work within current constraints.

We took the mission to

“…to assist the Dorr Township Board of Trustees to determine whether new facilities are required to carry out its township functions and programs efficiently and to help prepare a presentation to the Dorr Township Board of Trustees, as well as to the citizens of Dorr Township”.

Attached hereto are our recommendations.

We request that the Board of Trustees respond to our recommendations in writing to the various committee members by October 21, 2009. The committee members’ list is attached.

DORR TOWNSHIP CITIZENS PLANNING COMMITTEE

Report of Recommendations – September 8, 2009

I. Assessor

Findings: The committee unanimously agrees that the current space is inadequate. This office has the most client volume and an increase in workload is anticipated. In the interest of client service, it would be ideal to provide a counter with monitors allowing easy access to property records thereby reducing on staff involvement.

Suggested Solutions:

1. Reconfigure current space eliminating the board room in favor of increasing assessor’s square footage. Modify the space to include a counter. Utilize the back door for ingress. Board meetings could be held elsewhere – banks holding township funds, for example.

2.Rent commercial space.

II. Township Clerk

Findings: The clerk has no township work space or dedicated storage and currently schedules herself to access the office during off hours. She should be provided with a computer linked to the printer and necessary supplies for use at her convenience during business hours. She should also be reimbursed for all business expenses including the cost of refreshments for town clerk meetings.

Suggested Solutions: The committee unanimously agrees that space be found to accommodate her needs and that all election material, township business records, as well as road district records be consolidated in fire-resistant storage boxes at the office.

1. Utilize a section of the board room if it is not reconfigured to meet the assessor’s needs.

2. A corner of Sue Brokaw’s office could be used.

While the concern the clerk voiced about a deputy clerk is not within our purview, we recommend an opinion be solicited from the township’s current lawyer. The previous lawyer considered the drafting of Sue Brokaw to function in the clerk’s stead a conflict of interest.

III.Road Commissioner

Dorr Township Garage

Findings: Although the Commissioner appreciates the desire to consolidate all town functions in one location, he also feels that the current garage facilities are well placed to allow personnel to reach all segments of town roads without going through the center to town. Concern was also expressed about mixing the public and heavy equipment. The committee believes environmental mitigation is required to address salt runoff into the adjacent wetlands and eventually into the underlying aquifers and groundwater.

Suggested Solutions:

The committee recommends that the facility should stay where it is
with the following changes:

1. Construct a salt dome to fit on the current site. The mixing of salt with other components should be done in such a way as to eliminate any potential for leaching into adjacent wetlands. We also strongly suggest that the supermix anti-ice liquid developed by Mark DeVries for the county be thoroughly investigated because it reduces salt usage. Last winter Algonquin Township used 2100 tons of salt for 60 miles while Dorr Township used 3100 tons for 35 miles of road.

Make necessary repairs to the salt building to convert it to cold storage and consider adding block ‘n’ roll doors. This would respond to the concern of storing mowers should the old Farm & Fleet building be sold.

Determine electrical needs and arrange for necessary repairs and/or upgrades.

The barn needs cleaning, painting and paneling and would be enhanced by the installation of skylights.

Remove all non-essential items including engine blocks, tires, etc.

Buy a flammable fuel containment storage unit and install floor pans under inside
units. This is an EPA requirement.

If space is at a premium, consider eliminating salt storage for other entities.

IV. Supervisor

Concerns were expressed about confidentiality relative to General Assistance applications and lack of space to offer additional programs. While the Supervisor has enumerated programs he would like to offer, no space requirements or financial costs for these programs have been determined.

Suggested Solutions:

1. The confidentiality concern would be resolved if the Assessor’s office and entrance are separated from the front desk.

2.Relocate the Supervisor to shared space with Sue Brokaw.

3.Modify the existing Supervisor’s office to include a partitioned counter.

V. Town Hall

The Supervisor has indicated that the physical plant requires some upgrading such as window replacement and heating/ac update.

Township Outreach:

A questionnaire should be developed and sent to township
residents. We suggest the following concerns:

1.Seek input regarding desired programs for youth, seniors and all ages

2.Ask if different business hours are desirable

3. Present taxpayer constituents with financial options ranging from spending the accumulated funds to rebates and lowering of levies.

Report submitted by: Dorr Township Citizens Planning Committee
Ted Andersen
Lynde Anderson
Jane L. Collins
Steve Kaiser
Quinn Keefe
Caryl Lemanski
Diane Range Magnuson
Kelli Myers
Vivian Sodini

The Northwest Herald scooped me Saturday on what happened after the McHenry County College meeting Thursday night, but I think the four-part series that starts here (see also Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4) adds significantly to Regan Foster’s story.

I do find it interesting that the paper’s web site does not have this story on its front page.

Why?

It was the lead story in the local section of the paper.

First a disclaimer. I was not the one fuming. The article says that was Iris Bryan, editor of the Town Crier.

I was more amused at the juvenile behavior of the person inside the room who presumably ordered the expulsion of the people paying his salary.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the story:

”College officials said it was a mix of misunderstandings and college policy that led to the ejection, while impacted residents said it was a violation of their right to attend a public meeting.

“If they would have asked me [to leave], I would have told them to go fly a kite,’ said George Lowe, chairman of the college board of trustees. ‘It should have not been done. It’s wrong; I didn’t know about it.’”

Maybe…

But after a security guard threatened to take legal action to charge one with trespassing if one didn’t leave?

Here’s what happened to ex-Chicago Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman when she was arrested for trespassing by hospital security guards.

Consider that the man sitting to Lowe’s left, MCC President Walt Packard, had previously communicated to me through newly hired security guard William Schultz.

I’ll admit it is possible Lowe was ignorant as to what Packard was doing when he used his cell phone.

The extremely new public relations person for the college, Christine Haggerty, simply does not know what she is talking about when she intimates in the NW Herald article that it is standard practice to kick citizens waiting in the hall outside the boardroom door out of the building at 10 o’clock.

Just a month before, no attempt was made to kick anyone out of the building, even through the meeting went beyond 10 o’clock, for example. There were other late meetings as well, but for that one, I jotted down the ending time.

Here’s another post-10 PM meeting where the adjournment date is relatively close to the heading showing the date of the meeting:
In all kindness, I would expect a bit of factual research before such easily refutable statements are made to reporters. There is no reason for Haggerty to lose her credibility so early in the game.

Hint: look at the minutes for January 21st and 28th, November 15th, October 25th. And, that covers only the ones still on the web site.

I see in Haggerty’s statement that the new security officer was not aware of state law allowing people to await the ending of a closed session disingenuous at best. If Schultz had not been given explicit instructions to get rid of us, he had a phone and could have talked to Packard again, given what he was told (which you can read here Wednesday).

I just hope Packard does not try to make Schultz the fall guy for what I suspect was his own decision.

As weekend readers of McHenry County Blog know, I didn’t just try to take pictures through the windows, I did take pictures. Some are shown in Saterday’s article about John McGuire’s presentation on FM and television tower(s) on behalf of what I assume is a firm called BMB. Some private company apparently wants to use public land for its private purposes.

“Our bad” is pretty much what the new MCC PR woman wants readers to take away from the NW Herald article.

It’s worse than that.

And I suspect President Packard knows it.

That’s why he’s not talking to the press.

= = = = =
In the top photo is MCC Board President George Lowe. Below is a picture focused on MCC President Walt Packard, with Lowe in the background. Packard’s head again appears blocking part of the power point slide at the bottom of the article. All images can be enlarged by clicking on them, but the contents of the slide have been re-typed in this article.

When we last left yesterday’s article about the “first we say we will, then we say we won’t” activity of McHenry County College board members and top employee President Walt Packard, two security officers had completed their assigned task to block the view from the hall inside the boardroom.

The room was wrapped up like a son’s Christmas gift to his mom using whatever wrapping material was available.

Shortly thereafter I went to the bathroom.

As we were standing at urinals, the younger of the two security guys informed that I would have to leave the building, that only employees (and, he may have said students) were allowed inside after ten o’clock.

I asked him about the non-employees in the board room and he told me that he had been told they were all college employees.

I informed him that was not the case.

We both made our way out into the hall where Town Crier editor Iris Bryan, Kim Willis and Jane Collins were talking outside the boardroom, waiting for the board to adjourn.

The officer who had previously been securing the visual privacy of the Broadcast Tower Proposers then proceeded to inform us that we would have to leave the building.

“After 10 o’clock everyone who is not an employee has to leave the building…The campus is closed after 10 o’clock to everyone who isn’t an employee,”

he repeated as various of the women pointed out the presence of the non-employees on the other side of the masked windows.

“If you are not a student or employee you can’t be in the meeting,” are what my notes say he said next.

By then we had learned his name was William Schultz.

He was a pleasant enough young man sent to do what whoever called him from inside the room (at least once President Packard) told him to do.

He had been on the job two weeks.

I reminded Schultz that he had told me that all in the board room were college employees. I pointed out that attorney Tom Zanck was certainly not a college employee.

It didn’t matter.

Iris Bryan was livid.

And she should have been.

I have know Iris for over 40 years. At one point she worked for my father’s weekly newspaper, The Star Reporter.

I have never seen her as angry.

As I said, she should have been.

The public cannot be evicted from a hall outside a secret meeting because they have the right to see the board go back into open session and observe any action, even if it is merely to adjourn.

Now, those of you who have been reading McHenry County Blog for a long while will remember my eviction from the Prairie Grove very Grade School during a secret meeting at which I was also taking pictures through the window.

The effort of Karen Bowman, now school board president, to lower the Venetian blinds while in a fit of rage was even funnier than Packard’s moving the American Flag to block my view of the power point presentation by the BMB high tower folks.

At least this time the person who accompanied me to the door This time wasn’t armed. (Considering what happened at NIU, carrying a firearm probably should be a requirement for college security officers.)

That incident led to this memorable wanted poster, a creation of Heck of a Guy blog’s Allan Showalter, who lives north of Crystal Lake.

Iris and I were certainly the only two people in the building who were in on the formation of McHenry County College. Iris was in charge of publicity for the April 1, 1968 referendum campaign and I assisted her. My father called the meeting to organize the committee that successfully proposed the ballot question that was passed. I know I was at the meeting and I’ll bet Iris was also.

So, she and I have as much stake in this college as any of the current board members or employees.

She was angry. Here is what she wrote for her Town Crier.

I was more amused at how the dysfunctional group of people running things behind the blocked windows had managed to negate any good will they achieved when they posted the board packet on the internet so taxpayers, as well as MCC employees could see the material that the board members would consider Thursday night.

Needless to say, I filed a complaint with both the McHenry County State’s Attorney and the Illinois Attorney General.

The Northwest Herald scooped me Saturday on what happened after the McHenry County College meeting Thursday night, but I think the four-part series that starts here (see also Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4) adds significantly to Regan Foster’s story.

I do find it interesting that the paper’s web site does not have this story on its front page.

Why?

It was the lead story in the local section of the paper.

First a disclaimer. I was not the one fuming. The article says that was Iris Bryan, editor of the Town Crier.

I was more amused at the juvenile behavior of the person inside the room who presumably ordered the expulsion of the people paying his salary.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the story:

”College officials said it was a mix of misunderstandings and college policy that led to the ejection, while impacted residents said it was a violation of their right to attend a public meeting.

“If they would have asked me [to leave], I would have told them to go fly a kite,’ said George Lowe, chairman of the college board of trustees. ‘It should have not been done. It’s wrong; I didn’t know about it.’”

Maybe…

But after a security guard threatened to take legal action to charge one with trespassing if one didn’t leave?

Here’s what happened to ex-Chicago Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman when she was arrested for trespassing by hospital security guards.

Consider that the man sitting to Lowe’s left, MCC President Walt Packard, had previously communicated to me through newly hired security guard William Schultz.

I’ll admit it is possible Lowe was ignorant as to what Packard was doing when he used his cell phone.

The extremely new public relations person for the college, Christine Haggerty, simply does not know what she is talking about when she intimates in the NW Herald article that it is standard practice to kick citizens waiting in the hall outside the boardroom door out of the building at 10 o’clock.

Just a month before, no attempt was made to kick anyone out of the building, even through the meeting went beyond 10 o’clock, for example. There were other late meetings as well, but for that one, I jotted down the ending time.

Here’s another post-10 PM meeting where the adjournment date is relatively close to the heading showing the date of the meeting:
In all kindness, I would expect a bit of factual research before such easily refutable statements are made to reporters. There is no reason for Haggerty to lose her credibility so early in the game.

Hint: look at the minutes for January 21st and 28th, November 15th, October 25th. And, that covers only the ones still on the web site.

I see in Haggerty’s statement that the new security officer was not aware of state law allowing people to await the ending of a closed session disingenuous at best. If Schultz had not been given explicit instructions to get rid of us, he had a phone and could have talked to Packard again, given what he was told (which you can read here Wednesday).

I just hope Packard does not try to make Schultz the fall guy for what I suspect was his own decision.

As weekend readers of McHenry County Blog know, I didn’t just try to take pictures through the windows, I did take pictures. Some are shown in Saterday’s article about John McGuire’s presentation on FM and television tower(s) on behalf of what I assume is a firm called BMB. Some private company apparently wants to use public land for its private purposes.

“Our bad” is pretty much what the new MCC PR woman wants readers to take away from the NW Herald article.

It’s worse than that.

And I suspect President Packard knows it.

That’s why he’s not talking to the press.

= = = = =
In the top photo is MCC Board President George Lowe. Below is a picture focused on MCC President Walt Packard, with Lowe in the background. Packard’s head again appears blocking part of the power point slide at the bottom of the article. All images can be enlarged by clicking on them, but the contents of the slide have been re-typed in this article.

When we last left yesterday’s article about the “first we say we will, then we say we won’t” activity of McHenry County College board members and top employee President Walt Packard, two security officers had completed their assigned task to block the view from the hall inside the boardroom.

The room was wrapped up like a son’s Christmas gift to his mom using whatever wrapping material was available.

Shortly thereafter I went to the bathroom.

As we were standing at urinals, the younger of the two security guys informed that I would have to leave the building, that only employees (and, he may have said students) were allowed inside after ten o’clock.

I asked him about the non-employees in the board room and he told me that he had been told they were all college employees.

I informed him that was not the case.

We both made our way out into the hall where Town Crier editor Iris Bryan, Kim Willis and Jane Collins were talking outside the boardroom, waiting for the board to adjourn.

The officer who had previously been securing the visual privacy of the Broadcast Tower Proposers then proceeded to inform us that we would have to leave the building.

“After 10 o’clock everyone who is not an employee has to leave the building…The campus is closed after 10 o’clock to everyone who isn’t an employee,”

he repeated as various of the women pointed out the presence of the non-employees on the other side of the masked windows.

“If you are not a student or employee you can’t be in the meeting,” are what my notes say he said next.

By then we had learned his name was William Schultz.

He was a pleasant enough young man sent to do what whoever called him from inside the room (at least once President Packard) told him to do.

He had been on the job two weeks.

I reminded Schultz that he had told me that all in the board room were college employees. I pointed out that attorney Tom Zanck was certainly not a college employee.

It didn’t matter.

Iris Bryan was livid.

And she should have been.

I have know Iris for over 40 years. At one point she worked for my father’s weekly newspaper, The Star Reporter.

I have never seen her as angry.

As I said, she should have been.

The public cannot be evicted from a hall outside a secret meeting because they have the right to see the board go back into open session and observe any action, even if it is merely to adjourn.

Now, those of you who have been reading McHenry County Blog for a long while will remember my eviction from the Prairie Grove very Grade School during a secret meeting at which I was also taking pictures through the window.

The effort of Karen Bowman, now school board president, to lower the Venetian blinds while in a fit of rage was even funnier than Packard’s moving the American Flag to block my view of the power point presentation by the BMB high tower folks.

At least this time the person who accompanied me to the door This time wasn’t armed. (Considering what happened at NIU, carrying a firearm probably should be a requirement for college security officers.)

That incident led to this memorable wanted poster, a creation of Heck of a Guy blog’s Allan Showalter, who lives north of Crystal Lake.

Iris and I were certainly the only two people in the building who were in on the formation of McHenry County College. Iris was in charge of publicity for the April 1, 1968 referendum campaign and I assisted her. My father called the meeting to organize the committee that successfully proposed the ballot question that was passed. I know I was at the meeting and I’ll bet Iris was also.

So, she and I have as much stake in this college as any of the current board members or employees.

She was angry. Here is what she wrote for her Town Crier.

I was more amused at how the dysfunctional group of people running things behind the blocked windows had managed to negate any good will they achieved when they posted the board packet on the internet so taxpayers, as well as MCC employees could see the material that the board members would consider Thursday night.

Needless to say, I filed a complaint with both the McHenry County State’s Attorney and the Illinois Attorney General.

Here is the third installment of Jane Collins letter of advice to McHenry County College board trustees.

It concerns secrecy, a topic the board knows a lot about.

III. Abjure secrecy. Conduct the People’s business as the Open Meetings Act requires.

On October 16, 2007, and on several subsequent occasions leading up to the October 22, 2007 Committee of the Whole [COW] meeting, four of the District’s trustees violated the Open Meetings Act.

They did so knowingly and willfully, believing that by their conferring “individually and not as a group” (Carol Larson, December 20, 2007) on the means and ways to punish/censure two District trustees, they could skirt the Open Meetings Act [the Act] requirements.

According to Trustee Larson, the [four] trustees first decided “they had to do something” after trustees Summers and Kurtz spoke at the October 16, 2007 City Council meeting. The District’s Chicago legal counsel was consulted and asked to provide a template for censure resolutions. Then followed communications among the trustees on the resolutions’ content, and when and how they would be presented for approval.

Trustees Summers, Kurtz and Glosson were excluded from these communications, according to minutes of the Committee of the Whole [COW] meeting on October 22, 2007.

Evidence that these “meetings” on a District matter took place: four of the trustees appeared at the October 22, 2007 COW meeting with a prepared statement and resolutions, stating it was their intention to have them approved that evening.

These resolutions were not on the publicly noticed agenda nor on any revised agenda. There is no public record of their being considered by the District Board at any prior public, open meeting.

This willful violation of the Act was done with full knowledge of what the Act requires. At at least one Board meeting, Counsel Metz cautioned the Board that even if they communicated about a District matter singly/individually, if the end result was three or more trustees’ conducting District business outside a publicly noticed and properly convened open, public meeting, this constituted a “meeting,” violating the Act.

President Packard knew about these communications, and that they violated the Open Meetings Act. Freedom of Information documents show that without prior Board discussion, appropriation or approval, President Packard talked with and engaged Wayne Newton, a mediator, to attend a Board Committee of the Whole meeting on October 22, 2007 at a cost of $3,000.00 plus travel expenses.

Ostensibly, the engagement’s purpose:

for a “half day retreat.”

The October 22 agenda does not list Mr. Newton as a visitor; it does not list him as a presenter or as connected to an item for consideration.

he October 22 minutes do not provide an introduction or explanation of his presence at the meeting, although he made a presentation.

There is no public record showing the Board had approved a “half day retreat.”
Nor is there any public record showing that such a “retreat” took place. What is unclear: whether there was a “meeting” of some trustees with Mr. Newton prior to the COW meeting. (“When I met him [Mr. Newton] at dinner that evening, I did not talk to him about the censure. We talked about corn.” Carol Larson, December 20, 2007.)

Also unclear:

Whether Counsel Kerrick was present at or informed of these illegal communications while they were taking place, and if she tried to stop them.

On October 25, 2007, when the question of Open Meetings violations on this matter arose, Counsel Kerrick attempted to excuse trustees who may have first discussed how to punish the two trustees on October 16, 2007 after the Crystal Lake Council meeting.

She asserted that the trustees were in a meeting on that date. This is incorrect.

Even if the censure discussions among four trustees took place only that evening – which is not the case, according to their own admissions – they were not in a District meeting that evening.

Although the District purported to have held a special meeting on October 16, with a notice, agenda and minutes, the formalities of a properly conducted public meeting were not met.

This was not a joint meeting with the City of Crystal Lake Council; the District Board chairman did not convene the meeting; no District business was conducted; nor did the chair adjourn the meeting.

The District trustees were merely in attendance at the council meeting at which a District petition was considered by council members; Mayor Shepley convened, conducted and adjourned the meeting pursuant to the City of Crystal Lake’s agenda.

It is not clear whether any of the four trustees consulted with Counsel Kerrick about the censure resolutions prior to the October 22, 2007 COW meeting.

At the October 25, 2007 Board of Trustees meeting, she asserted that the four [censuring] trustees “had not met with legal counsel.”

It is difficult to document violations of the Open Meetings Act. These details were pieced together over a long period of time. Although the Board refuses to record its open sessions, the public has attempted to cure this deficiency by posting recordings on the Internet. Recordings of the October 22 and 25, 2007 meetings may be found here.

These details are provided here because they indicate a willingness on the part of some trustees to attempt to circumvent the Open Meetings Act’s requirements. If these trustees believe they successfully skirted the law once, then this is the kind of conduct that is capable of being repeated. It is not the kind of conduct that inspires public confidence and trust.

To be hand delivered with attachments to the District Board on January 17, 2008.

Jane L. Collins

= = = = =
The photo of Jane Collins was taken on January 21, 2008, when she spoke at the public comment period.

The next five pictures, including the audience shots, were taken the night of the censuring of Trustees Scott Summers and Donna Kurtz.

The head shot on the left below the audience photos is of MCC attorney Sandy Kerrick on January 21, 2008, the last night a week before flash photography was banned. Notice how crisp the picture is.

October 16, 2007, the night MCC failed to obtain zoning approval for its baseball stadium proposal, is when the following two pictures of MCC board and staff were taken. This is the night when the board asserts it held a public meeting. The first picture was taken as the Crystal Lake City Council was rejecting the zoning change. The second shortly after while college officials were conferring outside in the hall.
The final picture is of citizen Leona Nelson, who was censured herself by the Crystal Lake Park District for supposedly revealing something that was discussed in closed session (not illegal) and sexual harassment, handing MCC Trustee Donna Kurtz a rose and an American flag after she and Board President Scott Summers were censured by a 4-3 vote.

Here is the third installment of Jane Collins letter of advice to McHenry County College board trustees.

It concerns secrecy, a topic the board knows a lot about.

III. Abjure secrecy. Conduct the People’s business as the Open Meetings Act requires.

On October 16, 2007, and on several subsequent occasions leading up to the October 22, 2007 Committee of the Whole [COW] meeting, four of the District’s trustees violated the Open Meetings Act.

They did so knowingly and willfully, believing that by their conferring “individually and not as a group” (Carol Larson, December 20, 2007) on the means and ways to punish/censure two District trustees, they could skirt the Open Meetings Act [the Act] requirements.

According to Trustee Larson, the [four] trustees first decided “they had to do something” after trustees Summers and Kurtz spoke at the October 16, 2007 City Council meeting. The District’s Chicago legal counsel was consulted and asked to provide a template for censure resolutions. Then followed communications among the trustees on the resolutions’ content, and when and how they would be presented for approval.

Trustees Summers, Kurtz and Glosson were excluded from these communications, according to minutes of the Committee of the Whole [COW] meeting on October 22, 2007.

Evidence that these “meetings” on a District matter took place: four of the trustees appeared at the October 22, 2007 COW meeting with a prepared statement and resolutions, stating it was their intention to have them approved that evening.

These resolutions were not on the publicly noticed agenda nor on any revised agenda. There is no public record of their being considered by the District Board at any prior public, open meeting.

This willful violation of the Act was done with full knowledge of what the Act requires. At at least one Board meeting, Counsel Metz cautioned the Board that even if they communicated about a District matter singly/individually, if the end result was three or more trustees’ conducting District business outside a publicly noticed and properly convened open, public meeting, this constituted a “meeting,” violating the Act.

President Packard knew about these communications, and that they violated the Open Meetings Act. Freedom of Information documents show that without prior Board discussion, appropriation or approval, President Packard talked with and engaged Wayne Newton, a mediator, to attend a Board Committee of the Whole meeting on October 22, 2007 at a cost of $3,000.00 plus travel expenses.

Ostensibly, the engagement’s purpose:

for a “half day retreat.”

The October 22 agenda does not list Mr. Newton as a visitor; it does not list him as a presenter or as connected to an item for consideration.

he October 22 minutes do not provide an introduction or explanation of his presence at the meeting, although he made a presentation.

There is no public record showing the Board had approved a “half day retreat.”
Nor is there any public record showing that such a “retreat” took place. What is unclear: whether there was a “meeting” of some trustees with Mr. Newton prior to the COW meeting. (“When I met him [Mr. Newton] at dinner that evening, I did not talk to him about the censure. We talked about corn.” Carol Larson, December 20, 2007.)

Also unclear:

Whether Counsel Kerrick was present at or informed of these illegal communications while they were taking place, and if she tried to stop them.

On October 25, 2007, when the question of Open Meetings violations on this matter arose, Counsel Kerrick attempted to excuse trustees who may have first discussed how to punish the two trustees on October 16, 2007 after the Crystal Lake Council meeting.

She asserted that the trustees were in a meeting on that date. This is incorrect.

Even if the censure discussions among four trustees took place only that evening – which is not the case, according to their own admissions – they were not in a District meeting that evening.

Although the District purported to have held a special meeting on October 16, with a notice, agenda and minutes, the formalities of a properly conducted public meeting were not met.

This was not a joint meeting with the City of Crystal Lake Council; the District Board chairman did not convene the meeting; no District business was conducted; nor did the chair adjourn the meeting.

The District trustees were merely in attendance at the council meeting at which a District petition was considered by council members; Mayor Shepley convened, conducted and adjourned the meeting pursuant to the City of Crystal Lake’s agenda.

It is not clear whether any of the four trustees consulted with Counsel Kerrick about the censure resolutions prior to the October 22, 2007 COW meeting.

At the October 25, 2007 Board of Trustees meeting, she asserted that the four [censuring] trustees “had not met with legal counsel.”

It is difficult to document violations of the Open Meetings Act. These details were pieced together over a long period of time. Although the Board refuses to record its open sessions, the public has attempted to cure this deficiency by posting recordings on the Internet. Recordings of the October 22 and 25, 2007 meetings may be found here.

These details are provided here because they indicate a willingness on the part of some trustees to attempt to circumvent the Open Meetings Act’s requirements. If these trustees believe they successfully skirted the law once, then this is the kind of conduct that is capable of being repeated. It is not the kind of conduct that inspires public confidence and trust.

To be hand delivered with attachments to the District Board on January 17, 2008.

Jane L. Collins

= = = = =
The photo of Jane Collins was taken on January 21, 2008, when she spoke at the public comment period.

The next five pictures, including the audience shots, were taken the night of the censuring of Trustees Scott Summers and Donna Kurtz.

The head shot on the left below the audience photos is of MCC attorney Sandy Kerrick on January 21, 2008, the last night a week before flash photography was banned. Notice how crisp the picture is.

October 16, 2007, the night MCC failed to obtain zoning approval for its baseball stadium proposal, is when the following two pictures of MCC board and staff were taken. This is the night when the board asserts it held a public meeting. The first picture was taken as the Crystal Lake City Council was rejecting the zoning change. The second shortly after while college officials were conferring outside in the hall.
The final picture is of citizen Leona Nelson, who was censured herself by the Crystal Lake Park District for supposedly revealing something that was discussed in closed session (not illegal) and sexual harassment, handing MCC Trustee Donna Kurtz a rose and an American flag after she and Board President Scott Summers were censured by a 4-3 vote.

Here is the second part of Jane Collin’s advice to the McHenry County College board.

This section concentrates on accountability. Take a look at the amount of money that Mark Houser of Equity One has been paid and the lack of documentation for what he has done to earn the $400,000 in MCC taxpayer dollars.

And, notice Collins’ questions about the possibility that the college is using Houser’s company, EquityOne, to hide what it being paid to FCL and Cornerstone, companies that are presumably doing work for the college.

II. Demonstrate a willingness to be held accountable.

Exercise prudent fiduciary oversight over District investments of taxpayer monies. Some trustees have failed and continue to fail to acknowledge that impartial third party reviews and experts have demonstrated that the proposed Sports & Entertainment complex is not a sound investment of taxpayer dollars. Instead, this would be a public subsidy for private investors.

A specific example of failed oversight:1. Mark Houser still being paid for a project that supposedly has been put on hold. (Mark Houser received all of the “Release to Begin Development” money: August 2007, $220,000; Sept. 2007, $100,000; November 2007, $80,000.)

2. Where is the tangible evidence of what the District has received in exchange for the $400,000 paid to Mark Houser, i.e., “the items that need to be started and or completed prior to the City of Crystal Lake’s final approval of the PUD include full architectural and engineering drawings, full specifications, full bid packages and bid reviews along with solicitations for naming rights, sponsorships and indoor center user groups.” Para. one, “Release,” 5-10-07.

3. Missing from Mark Houser one-page invoices: itemized hourly rates, services/tasks performed and by whom.

4. Does Mark Houser serve as a “pass through” for monies paid to FCL, Cornerstone and others with whom the District does not have executed contracts?

5. What financial and legal liability has this Board incurred in this “pass through” arrangement to those being so paid – to the engineering firm FCL has hired, for example?

Here is the second part of Jane Collin’s advice to the McHenry County College board.

This section concentrates on accountability. Take a look at the amount of money that Mark Houser of Equity One has been paid and the lack of documentation for what he has done to earn the $400,000 in MCC taxpayer dollars.

And, notice Collins’ questions about the possibility that the college is using Houser’s company, EquityOne, to hide what it being paid to FCL and Cornerstone, companies that are presumably doing work for the college.

II. Demonstrate a willingness to be held accountable.

Exercise prudent fiduciary oversight over District investments of taxpayer monies. Some trustees have failed and continue to fail to acknowledge that impartial third party reviews and experts have demonstrated that the proposed Sports & Entertainment complex is not a sound investment of taxpayer dollars. Instead, this would be a public subsidy for private investors.

A specific example of failed oversight:1. Mark Houser still being paid for a project that supposedly has been put on hold. (Mark Houser received all of the “Release to Begin Development” money: August 2007, $220,000; Sept. 2007, $100,000; November 2007, $80,000.)

2. Where is the tangible evidence of what the District has received in exchange for the $400,000 paid to Mark Houser, i.e., “the items that need to be started and or completed prior to the City of Crystal Lake’s final approval of the PUD include full architectural and engineering drawings, full specifications, full bid packages and bid reviews along with solicitations for naming rights, sponsorships and indoor center user groups.” Para. one, “Release,” 5-10-07.

3. Missing from Mark Houser one-page invoices: itemized hourly rates, services/tasks performed and by whom.

4. Does Mark Houser serve as a “pass through” for monies paid to FCL, Cornerstone and others with whom the District does not have executed contracts?

5. What financial and legal liability has this Board incurred in this “pass through” arrangement to those being so paid – to the engineering firm FCL has hired, for example?