McHenry County Blog


Archive for the ‘Open Meetings Act’

Gus Philpott’s Excellent Question

March 16, 2010 By: Cal Skinner Category: Ancel Glink, Barbara Murphy, Betty Zirk, Gerry McMahon, Grafton Township, Gus Philpott, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer, Open Meetings Act, Robert LaPorta, Woodstock Advocate

In an article on his Woodstock Advocate entitled,

When did Trustees decide to sue Supervisor?

Philpott’s opening paragraphs are just intriguing:

In an update to this morning’s article about the Grafton Township’s Trustees’ filing a lawsuit against Township Supervisor Linda Moore, this morning I telephoned the Grafton Township Supervisor at her telephone number as published on the Township’s website.

Township Administrator Pam Fender answered the telephone number listed under the Supervisor’s name and told me that she did not know when the Trustees had decided on the lawsuit. Now, how does the Administrator not know the answer to what I would consider a fairly simple and direct question?

Grafton Township Trustees, from left to right, Gerry McMahon, Betty Zirk, Rob LaPorta and Barb Murphy, meeting in open session last Thursday night.

I stayed until the end of the meeting and discussion of the Separation of Powers suit filed by Supervisor Linda Moore by Ancel Glink partner Rob Bush was not even behind closed doors.

There certainly was no motion to sue anyone while the township trustees were in session, let alone the passage of a motion.

So, all you legal eagles reading this, let me know whether you think the decision to file the suit was a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

= = = = =
Incidentally, I called Township Administrator Pam Fender this morning asking for a copy of the suit, but have not received it as of 5 PM. She said she didn’t have one, but would contact Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer.  If it ever comes, it will be interesting to see what the township is billed for sending it.

Grafton Township Announces Intent to Violate to Open Meetings Act

March 12, 2010 By: Cal Skinner Category: Ancel Glick, Grafton Township, Open Meetings Act, Rob Bush, Robert Bush

Here it is, right on the official Grafton Township web site:

Announcement about excluding the non-voting public from the Grafton Township Annual Meeting, as of 12:45 PM on Friday, March 12th. Click to enlarge.

Only registered voters may attend (and press), you will need to show some form of ID and your name will be matched to our County voters registration roles.”  (Emphasis added.)

Ancel Glick attorney Robert Bush

Guess whoever made the decision to put that up on the web site didn’t have an adequate understanding of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

Last night at the regular Grafton Township Board meeting, Ancel Glick partner Rob Bush disabused the trustees of any notion that they might be able to keep the non-registered public out:

“It is a public meeting so anyone who wants to come can come.”

Guess it’s time to change the web site.

Maybe it will be changed by the time you read this.

State’s Attorney’s Office Says Trustees’ Boycott of Township Meeting Did Not Violate Open Meetings Act; Linda Moore Suggests Deeper Probe

January 08, 2010 By: Cal Skinner Category: Ancel Glick, Barbara Murphy, Betty Zirk, Boycott, Dina Frigo, First Electric Newspaper, Grafton Township, Keri-Lyn Krafterfer, McHenry County State's Attorney, Open Meetings Act, Pete Gonigam, Robert LaPorta

November 12, 2009, Grafton Township Meeting that the four trustes did not attend.

As reported by McHenry County Blog November 12th, the four Grafton Township Trustees who wanted to build a new township hall, but didn’t want to ask the public for permission in a referendum, boycotted a township meeting.

Township Supervisor Linda Moore, Township Clerk Dina Frigo, Road Commissioner Jack Freund and Assessor Bill Ottley attended the meeting.

Township Trustees Barbara Murphy, Robert LaPorta, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon weren’t there.

Here’s what the Assistant State’s Attorney Cynthia A. Schaupp said in a January 7th letter to Moore:

This investigation revealed the following:
Mr. LaPorta did contact the Grafton Township attorney to inquire whether he could boycott the November 12, 2009, meeting since the agenda did not contain items he requested to have placed on the agenda.The attorney informed him he can choose to not attend the meeting.

Mr. LaPorta then contacted by telephone Trustee Zire and Trustee Murphy, individually, to inform them that he would not be attending the meeting.

Mr. LaPorta, never told the Trustees that they should also miss the meeting.

Trustee Murphy was not able to go to the meeting due to a work conflict and did not miss the meeting due to the any other reason.

Trustee McMahon did not recall if Trustee LaPorta even contacted him prior to the November 12, 2009 meeting.

The facts presented do not indicate any designed plan or “chain” to violate the Open Meetings Act.

Based on the above facts available to me at this time, this office does not believe there was any violation of the Open Meetings Act and thus will take no further action. However, should any additional information become available, this office may review this decision.

After receiving the above letter Supervisor Moore, who filed an Open Meetings Act violation complaint, sent the following letter to the State’s Attorney’s Office:

Cythia Schaupp
Assistant State’s Attorney
January 8. 2010

Dear Attorney Schaupp,

I have received your letter regarding the boycotting of meetings by the Grafton Township Trustees.  Thank you for contacting the trustees, however, I am concerned that you have overlooked some evidence from reporter Pete Gonigam and new evidence has occurred.

Please review the quote by Trustee LaPorta made at the time that the boycotting occurred to reporter Pete Gonigam who wrote a story the next day on the subject,

“We as a group of trustees decided to do that.”

LaPorta said.  You do not refer to this evidence in your letter even though on November 18th I wrote a letter to you asking you to consider this evidence and contact Mr. Gonigam.

The word boycott defined means

“to join together in refusing to deal with, so as to punish or coerce.”

Source is Webster’s Dictionary and online Your Dictionary.

In your letter, dated January 7th you state that Mr. LaPorta asked the attorney to inquire whether he could boycott a meeting.  Your letter states, “The attorney informed him that he can choose not to attend the meeting.”

Ancel Glick partner Keri-Lyn Krafterfer advising Grafton Township Board.

On November 6, Krafthefer advises the trustees in a letter,

“Further, there is nothing to prevent the Township Trustees from boycotting the regular meeting with your proposed agenda,“

Attorney Krafthefer’s response is also documented in a letter to the trustees dated November 17th,

“There is nothing that prevents one trustee from calling another trustee, then hanging up and calling another trustee.  Such would not constitute a meeting under the Open Meetings Act.”

In other words, she has said there is no such thing as a “chain” call that would violate the Open Meetings Act.

In my opinion, Ms. Krafthefer has given the trustees inappropriate legal counsel in these statements.

Per the Open Meetings Act, “Meeting” means any gathering, whether in person, or by video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means, or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body.

November 12, 2009, Grafton Township Meeting that the four trustes did not attend.

In other words, the definition of a meeting can be calls made one after another between more than two board members.  Mr. LaPorta may have told you that he did not tell the trustees to boycott the meeting, however he admits to doing just that when he is quoted by Pete Gonigam,

We as a group of trustees decided to do that (boycott the meeting.)”

Since my previous contact with you, the trustees have chosen not to attend four meetings in the month of November and as a result many items of township business are not addressed at this time.  In fact, the trustees did not attend meetings dated November 12, 16, 18 and 24th.

Clearly this was not a one time unplanned coincidental event.  It is reoccurring and intentional.

On January 4th Trustee McMahon was quoted by the Daily Herald reporter Jameel Naqvi as follows,

“I don’t want to go to a meeting called by Linda Moore…don’t care about anything she has on the agenda.”

McMahon said.

Is not this further evidence that the trustees plan to continue to violate the Open Meetings Act by joining together to refuse to deal with, so as to punish or coerce with the township attorney’s apparent permission as documented in your letter of January 7th?

In light of this additional information, you have offered to review this decision.

I am asking that you do reconsider the Open Meetings Violation Compliant that was made by myself and an unnamed McHenry County resident.

After receiving your letter I tried to contact you by telephone, but you were unavailable at that time.  For clarification purposes, I have sent you various documents at various times, but I was under the impression that the investigation was started at the request of another McHenry County resident.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Very Truly Yours,

Grafton Township Supervisor
Linda Moore

Attachments include:
Jan. 7 letter from Office of State Attorney
Nov. 17 letter, page 2 Ancel-Glick
Nov. 18 letter from Linda Moore
Jan. 4 Daily Herald article
Nov. 13 Pete Gonigam article
Nov. 6 Ancel Glick letter

When I asked the First Electric Newspaper’s Pete Gonigam if he had been interviewed by the State’s Attornedy’s Office, he said that he had not.

Huntley District 158 Files Plan to Spend Special Education Stimulus Money

September 22, 2009 By: Cal Skinner Category: ARRA, Cheryl Kalkritz, Huntley School District 158, IDEA, John Burkey, Open Meetings Act, Special Ed, Stimulus Package

Without first informing the school board or parents, the Huntley School District has filed a plan with the Special Education District of McHenry County (SEDOM) outlining how Federal Stimulus money will be spent under the Individual Development Education Act (IDEA).

You remember that the administration recommended spending only half of the $1.6 million on what most people would consider special ed purposes.

The board, with administrators present, spent two nights getting input from parents.

I detected sincerity from Board President Shawn Green when he spoke of his concerns about that diversion of money from special ed kids.

Now, without board approval–at least in an open meeting–and with an unfilled promise for a parental survey (see below for what is contained on the bottom of minutes below; click to enlarge the image), a plan for how to spend the Federal funds has been filed in Woodstock.

ARRA Funds
  • A survey was passed out to attendees and will also be on the district website. Staff and parents will have the opportunity to complete the survey online. Datesto be determined.
  • Outcome of the survey should be ready for the October School Board meeting.

Supt. John Burkey had District 158 file a plan with SEDOM to spend the IDEA ARRA (American Recovery Re-Investment Plan) stimulus funds without as much as telling parents about last Friday’s deadline.

It is hard to believe that school administrators didn’t knew about the deadline and would be telling parents a survey would be taken, tempting them to think they would have input on such a plan.

The district hired a new attorney, a specialist in Special Ed, who promptly told parents how trust is important.

Maybe the trust speech should have been shared more broadly.

There are so many questions

  • Whose name is on the document?
  • Is it Director of Special Services Cheryl Kalkirtz’?
  • Was Kalkirtz following orders about what was in the submission, risking insubordination if she didn’t send in the document as instructed? Or was she the author and decision-maker behind its entire content?
  • Whose idea was it to keep the plan and its submission deadline secret from the board and parents?

Board President Green assured parents they would have input into any plan.

Since the parents’ survey has not been completed, it would seem that parental input has gone by the wayside.

But, since the plan hasn’t been made public yet, who knows?  Maybe some of the verbal advice from the Special Ed Moms and Dads was followed.

Keeping key information from the public was a cornerstone of the referendum tax hike deception of 2004.

Five years later, it appears similar practices live under a new administration.

As a former government official, I can tell you that individuals act with impunity when they are certain there will be no potential negative consequences if they get caught.  (If you need a high profile example, think of Governor Rod Blagojevich before his arrest.)

It seems to me that the school board has been hung out to dry…assuming they have not been informed of the content of the report.

Certainly, if the board majority has approved what has been submitted in their names, special ed parents will wonder when and where that approval occurred.

Any approval out of public view would challenge the mandate of the Open Meetings Act.
 
So, let’s assume the Open Meetings Act was obeyed.

Who, then, has concocted this secret plan?

Will that person or persons be punished or rewarded?

There does seem to be some irony that Federal government officials can’t keep a military recommendation about the need for more troops for Afghanistan a secret, yet Huntley’s school administration thinks it can keep a spending plan secret from residents until after going through the motions of taking a survey.

It will be interesting to see to school administrators explain the getting of input after, instead of before the plan was sent to SEDOM.

It will also be interesting to see whether newspapers’ editorial staffs give District 158 a pass, not to mention how reporters will cover the story.

Increasing Residents Tax Burden in Huntley District 158

August 14, 2009 By: Cal Skinner Category: Financial Advisory Committee, Huntley School District 158, John Burkey, Mark Altmayer, Open Meetings Act

Increasing borrowing costs with higher fees and interest expense was proposed Tuesday night in the Huntley District 158 board room.

Mark Altmayer, the new Huntley School District’s Controller, presented his plan to do this.

Instead of paying what’s owed in bond and interest, I’m told Altmayer and Superintendent John Burkey want to rack up higher interest expenses by stretching out a loan and paying a $45,000 fee for the “privilege” of being allowed to repay the bonds many years in the future.

In other words, pay more interest expense by stretching out the debt repayment and let some other superintendent and controller deal with controlling expenses.

Unfortunately residents or the media could never known this hour-long discussion was going to take place.

You see it wasn’t on the agenda, even though Altmayer had handouts and apparently planned to discuss it with the Financial Advisory Committee.

The Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) meetings are not videotaped so there is no video or audio recorded evidence of any potential violations of the Open Meetings Act.

From the posted agenda below, it’s apparent re-structuring bond repayment schedules was not an agenda item that the public was supposed to know about.

Meeting Notice

Financial Advisory Committee

President Shawn Green, of the Board of Education of School District #158, McHenry and Kane Counties, Illinois, has scheduled a Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. to be held at the Square Barn Road Campus, Administrative Building, 650 Academic Drive, Algonquin, Illinois in the board room.

Shawn Green Eric Zornow

Board of Education Financial Advisory Chair

Agenda

1) Call to order
2) Additions/Deletions to the agenda
3) Public Comment
4) Review and approval of minutes
5) Budget update
6) Future projects
7) Update on grant opportunities
8) FAC membership Terms
9) Open Discussion
10) Adjourn

7.30.09

There’s a question if the FAC members were informed ahead of time that Altmayer was going to bring this to their committee.

The FAC members were not given hard copies of the latest proposed budget to discuss either before or during the meeting.

I haven’t seen any evidence that electronic copies of the latest proposed budget were emailed to them.

FAC members suggested three alternatives to Altmayer’s “pay more money later” options to cutting expenses this year.

Altmayer was apparently unreceptive to FAC members’ suggestions about how best to go about refinancing the debt.

Somehow it must make sense to Altmayer and Burkey to pay about $45,000 in taxpayer money to make it easy to balance the budget this year and next, if that’s what they are proposing. It would free up money for raises for both administrators and teachers.

The FAC members did discuss all resigning and, in effect, dissolving the committee as it currently stands. There was sentiment the administration ignores its recommendations.

Why stick around if no one is going to listen to your suggestions?

For the previous FAC meeting, the administration forgot to email all members there was a meeting scheduled.

This time it looks like a pretty important agenda item was missing.

Primer for Public Officials on Open Meetings & Freedom of Information Acts at MCC Thursday Night

May 13, 2009 By: Cal Skinner Category: Freedom of Information Act, Illinois Attorney General, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County State's Attorney, Open Meetings Act, Transparency

Just in case you are a public official who wants to obey the laws about Freedom of Information and Open Meetings and, maybe, especially, if you are one who doesn’t, a free seminar will be conducted by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi and the Illinois Attorney General’s Office Thursday night at 7.

Citizens can come, too, of course. You can learn how few rights you have and how hard it is to pry information out of a tax district that says,

“Tough break.

“We won’t tell you.

“Sue us.”

Some even pay an attorney to write such a letter.

The free meeting will be held at McHenry County College’s auditorium and this year does not conflict with a meeting of the MCC Board, whose members most assuredly need to be reminded they don’t have to keep things like why they decided to build a minor league baseball stadium and why they think they got the best price on land they sold for a mega-broadcast aerial top secret, hush, hush.

Those of us who think the public is smart enough to deal with just about anything a local taxing district does can only hope the current Illinois General Assembly places some personal penalties on those who violate the two transparency laws.

But, won’t hold my breath waiting.

Bianchi’s press release is below:

STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SPONSORS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SEMINAR

Louis A. Bianchi, McHenry County State’s Attorney, wishes to remind Elected or Appointed Public Officials that a free seminar will be conducted May 14, 2009 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the McHenry County College Auditorium. This seminar is sponsored by the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office and McHenry County College and will include speakers from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office to provide information regarding the Illinois Open Meetings Act as well as the Freedom of Information Act.

This seminar will provide particularly useful information for both newly elected officials, incumbents and appointed public servants as it will encompass the requirements of these Acts on public bodies as well as recent updates in this important Legislation that works to provide transparency in Government.

Guidance Offered on Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Acts

May 01, 2009 By: Cal Skinner Category: Algonquin Countryside, Cary-Grove Countryside, Freedom of Information Act, Illinois Attorney General, Lou Bianchi, McHenry County, McHenry County College, Open Meetings Act, Walt Packard

The last time such a briefing was held by the McHenry County State’s Attorney Office, the board most in need of hearing the advice, not to mention following the law, the McHenry County College Board board was meeting at the same time.

When State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi sued the MCC board for violating the Open Meetings Act, the board, after spending an amount it refuses to reveal, settled out of court.

Well, at least former President Walt Packard is not going to be around to send me threatening letters. But, he’s been given over a $250,000 going away present by being kept on the payroll from his resignation to June 30, 2010.


STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SPONSORS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SEMINAR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Louis A. Bianchi, McHenry County State’s Attorney is pleased to announce a seminar for Elected and Appointed Officials to be conducted May 14, 2009 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the McHenry County College Auditorium.

This seminar is sponsored by the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office and McHenry County College and the seminar will include speakers from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office to provide information regarding the Illinois Open Meetings Act as well as the Freedom of Information Act.

This seminar will provide particularly useful information for both newly elected officials and incumbents as it will encompass the requirements of these Acts as well as recent updates in this important Legislation that works to provide transparency in Government.

= = = = =
The woman taking notes in the photo on top is Iris Bryan. Jane Collins can be seen in the background in the first picture. MCC security officer William Schultz reparing the evict those legally standing outside the late February 2008 meeting where John Maguire of BMB Communications Management made his first pitch to buy college property to build a mega-tower.

The editorial is from the late, lamented Algonquin Countryside and Cary-Grove Countryside, weekly newspapers that stopped publication last December.

Click to enlarge any image.

McHenry County College Board Takes a Dive

June 27, 2008 By: Cal Skinner Category: Lou Bianchi, MCC, McHenry County College, McHenry County State's Attorney, Open Meetings Act

The reply to the suit filed against the McHenry County College Board for violating the Open Meetings Act by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi is fascinating.

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

15 times the college attorney says Bianchi’s charges were “right on.”

Bianchi did conclude that the violation was “not intentional.” He also praises college personnel for their cooperation in his investigation.

Considering what happened earlier that night, I find the following exculpatory sentence from the college intriguing:

“The members of the Board of Trustees had no knowledge that the security guards were instructing people to leave the building based upon the policy which had been in effect for years.”

I wonder if the trustees and everyone else in the secret meeting would be willing to swear the following:

“The members of the Board of Trustees had no knowledge that the security guards were instructing people to leave the building.”

McHenry County College Board Takes a Dive

June 26, 2008 By: Cal Skinner Category: Lou Bianchi, MCC, McHenry County College, McHenry County State's Attorney, Open Meetings Act

The reply to the suit filed against the McHenry County College Board for violating the Open Meetings Act by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi is fascinating.

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

“The Defendant admits…

15 times the college attorney says Bianchi’s charges were “right on.”

Bianchi did conclude that the violation was “not intentional.” He also praises college personnel for their cooperation in his investigation.

Considering what happened earlier that night, I find the following exculpatory sentence from the college intriguing:

“The members of the Board of Trustees had no knowledge that the security guards were instructing people to leave the building based upon the policy which had been in effect for years.”

I wonder if the trustees and everyone else in the secret meeting would be willing to swear the following:

“The members of the Board of Trustees had no knowledge that the security guards were instructing people to leave the building.”

Up, Up and Away, But Not in a Beautiful Balloon

June 25, 2008 By: Cal Skinner Category: Freedom of Information Act, MCC, McHenry County College, Open Meetings Act

An earlier story mentioned that legal fees were part of the reason contractual expenses were up this fiscal year.

McHenry County College President Walt Packard gets more specific in another report.

He says, the legal expenses line item may be overspent $40,000 without supplemental spending authority.

That’s even though $60,000 in additional spending authority was approved by the MCC College board at the end of March.

Blamed are employee contract negotiations, purchase of the adjoining 67 acre Gilger property and those pesky citizen and media Freedom of Information requests.

And the Open Meetings violation suit filed by McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi.

You know. It’s cheaper when you follow the law.

  • About

    This is a journal of news and opinion designed to bring to light matters of public interest and to encourage public participation in the governmental process.

    Emphasis will be on McHenry County, but Illinois state news will be covered. Articles and photos are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without explicit written permission.