McHenry County Blog

The Northwest Herald’s Kevin Craver has been a busy guy.

He just posted a scathing piece on his blog, “Opening Doors.”

The subject is the very “special” meeting of the McHenry County College Board to extend the contract of President Vicky Smith’s contract, which does not expire until the middle of 2014.

Craver asks if the meeting notice complies with the new provisions of the Open Meetings Act.

The agenda for Tuesday night’s McHenry County College Board meeting does not say that a vote will be taken on extending President Vicky Smith’s contract.

Undoubtedly any vote will be brought to the attention of the Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.

Walt Packard got a Golden Parachute when he was ousted from the MCC Presidency after the minor league baseball and broadcast tower fiascos.

It takes the AG’s Office a long time to render a decision, however.

But back to my headline.

Does anyone on the Board–holdovers or thos whose term of office is over April 25th–think that

will improve the College’s image?

Carol Larson and Barbara Walters had the best ballot positions, but that did not help them to emerge victorious.  If MCC’s image had been favorable, wouldn’t they have won?

Certainly, the “re-branding” under Smith’s leadership didn’t or two of her biggest supporters wouldn’t have lost the election so badly.

So, I ask the current Trustees:

Do you really care about the future of McHenry County College?

If you do, cancel this meeting.

Don’t take action that will get you another negative front page story in the Northwest Herald.

And, who knows, the Daily Herald might even send a reporter and make the situation worse.

The email address is mcctrustees@mchenry.edu for those who wish to comment on the situation.

A press release from the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office:

STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SPONSORS LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICS SEMINAR

Louis A. Bianchi is pleased to announce that the State’s Attorney’s Office is sponsoring a free seminar on local government transparency and ethics for all public officials on May 2, 2013 at McHenry County College from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

This seminar is open to all newly elected officials, incumbents, and the general public and will include presentations by attorneys from the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office as well as the Illinois Attorney General’s Office on compliance with

• the Illinois Freedom of Information Act
• the Open Meetings Act
• the Illinois Public Officials Prohibited Activities Act

While each public body faces different challenges and issues, transparency and a strong ethical foundation are essential to all governmental bodies.

The McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office strives to ensure that the citizens of McHenry County find their local officials to be trustworthy and receptive to the needs of the community.

When I spoke during public comment time at the McHenry County Mental Health Board meeting on Monday night,  I criticized the Board for not having posted its 5 o’clock Ethics & Compliance Committee meeting.

Here’s what was on the Mental Health Board web site on Monday, August 20th:

The August 20th 5 PM meeting of the Mental Health Board’s Ethics & Compliance Committee was not on its web site the day of the meeting. That was the same day as the Board meeting, which is visible.  Note date on the upper right hand corner of the page.

By the Friday after the meeting, however, the Committee meeting had been posted:

Someone added the August 20th 5 PM meeting of the Ethics & Compliance Committee to the calendar after the meeting was held.  Note date on the upper right hand corner of the page.

What do you make of that?

Note that on Monday morning, the Board is holding a 7 AM meeting.

That has not been posted on the McHenry County web site, however.

What appears on the McHenry County calendar for the Mental Health Board for the weekend prior to the 7 AM Monday meeting.

While such posting is a courtesy and certainly not mandatory, it is a convenience to the public that the Mental Health Board has foregone for Monday’s meeting.

There is some indication that the Monday meeting may cover revisions in the new appeals rules, but, since there is no agenda posted, the only way to find out is to go to the meeting.  I stopped doing early morning meetings in the 1970′s, so if you attend, please let me know what happens.

In planning to attend the McHenry County Mental Health Board meeting Monday, I went to the County web site to check out the time.

What was listed on the McHenry County web site about the 708 Board meetings Monday.

The Mental Health Board is a separate tax district and I’m glad that they are trying to get their meeting posted where people might tend to look for meetings for an entity called the McHenry County Mental Health Board.

(The County Board appoints its members and gets to vote up or down on its budget.  Otherwise, the Board is virtually independent, much like the Conservation District Board.)

There is no requirement for posting meetings on the County website, but those looking for Monday’s events, including myself, might be excused for being irritated at not being able to find Monday’s Ethics and Compliance Committee meeting anywhere on the internet.

I also went to the 708 Board’s calendar.  Nothing was listed there about the Ethics and Compliance Committee meeting either, as you can see below:

Here’s what the McHenry County Mental Health Board calendar revealed last night. There is no mention of the 5 PM Ethics and Compliance Committee meeting that preceded the Board meeting.

Agenda of the Ethics and Compliance Committee meeting. Click to enlarge.

After discussion with the 708 Board’s attorney Frank Gosser, I conclude that the 5 o’clock meeting was not an “illegal meeting,” as I charged during the Public Comment period of the 6 PM Board meeting, but the notice given certainly would not win any awards for transparency. I apologize for assuming lack of posting on the internet would make the Committee’s meeting a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

In any event, I figured the meeting would be at 7 and saw on both web sites that it was at 6.

Then I got a tip that there was a 5 o’clock meeting, which you will notice is not on either of the above calendars.

I understand that the Mental Health Board staff is trying to make sure such meetings are posted.  I hope they succeed soon.

The Ethics and Compliance Committee meeting was an interesting one, the most important part of which concerned new due process rules.

The goal of the new Audit and Appeal Policy, which was adopted at the 6 PM Board meeting, is to protect both the rights of the Board and the agencies who received primarily real estate tax financial support from it.

Details in a forthcoming article.

But let me get back to transparency.

It seems to me that a local government like the Mental Health Board should provide information about upcoming meetings, including agendas.  That did not happen with the Committee meeting’s agenda.

I checked out the agenda for the Board meeting at 6 and found the following under “New Business:”

“New Business” as listed on the Agenda for the August 20, 2012, meeting.  Note that attachments are missing for the last three items.

Perhaps you can figure out what the last two items refer to, but I couldn’t:

D. 201208-77 Executive Director Contract – FOR ACTION
E. 201208-78 Independent Contractor Agreement – FOR ACTION

I figured the Board was about to hire a new Executive Director to replace Sandy Lewis in the first item above.

The second one? I had no idea.

It turns out that the Executive Director item was the resignation of Sandy Lewis.

This is the way McHenry County College handles a resignation on its August 23rd agenda:

“Accept Resignation of Larry West and Approve Separation Agreement, Board Report #12-199″

Quite clear, wouldn’t you say?

And the independent contractor agreement?

What was that all about?

Robert Lesser

It contains the number “201208-78″ and there was a document that attorney Gosser was filling out after the meeting, but the Mental Health Board seems to have made the deliberate decision not to share this with people who might be home on the internet.

Earlier in the evening Deputy Director Robert Lesser was feted with a cake and recognized for his service to the agency, even presented with a mock-up of a plaque to be produced later.

He was obviously moved by the presentation.

It turned out the independent contractor mentioned in the agenda is him.

It seems with three of the top four staffers leaving more or less simultaneously, Lesser is the only one available to do the end-of-year paperwork.

I listened to the Board’s discussion, but never did I hear the terms of the unposted contract.

So, after adjournment, I asked attorney Gosser and was told Lesser would be paid $100 an hour with a maximum of 499 hours. A typical work year has about 2000 hours. (Lesser earned $97,645.86 a year in the latest salary rack-up.)

Could the Northwest Herald be planning to endorse a Democrat if Ken Koehler wins one of the four GOP spots in the District 2 primary election?

Maybe it’s not tea leaves.

Maybe it’s newspaper clippings to which I should allude.

In any event, the first two McHenry County Board endorsement editorials got me thinking.

McHenry County’s paper of record has suggested dumping

• Board Chairman Ken Koehler in District 2 and
• incumbent Nick Provenzano in District 3.

There is one commonality and that is their having taken part in the secret meeting about district lines that the Illinois Attorney General rules violated the Open Meetings Act.

If Nick Provenzano wins the District 3 GOP primary, could the Northwest Herald be planning to endorse the re-election of Democrat Kathy Bergan Schmidt?

The two were on opposing sides on the tax hike issue with Koehler leading the majority, while Provenzano vote against levying the maximum amount possible.

That brings me to my first thought.

Five members took part in that secret remap meeting.

One, Marc Munaretto, is not running for re-election.

The other two are on the ballot, however:

• Tina Hill
• John Jung

Both are in District 5.

There are five people running in District 5′s Republican primary election.

Listed in ballot order, they are:

• John Jung, Jr.
• Tina R. Hill
• Virginia D. Peschke
• Michael Rein
• Michael Skala

If the Northwest Herald forgoes endorsing incumbents Tina Hill and John Jung in District 5, if could mean Democrat Paul Yensen would get a re-election recommendation.

Will the Northwest Herald refuse to endorse both Jung and Hill?

No more reason to endorse four people for the four spots than there is to vote for four candidates, if only one, two or three turn you on.

Both Hill and Jung also voted to raise tax bills as much as the law allows, as you can see in the article linked to below.  Hill switched her vote to help  break a tie vote on a motion to keep taxes constant.

Will its editorial board say, “We can only recommend three”?

And that brings me to my second reading of the tea leaves.

By not endorsing strong incumbents in District 2 (Koehler) and District 3 (Provenzano) and, maybe only three Republicans in District 5, could the folks at the NWH be setting the stage for endorsing at least one Democrat in Districts 2, 3 and 5?

There are, of course, already Democrats in District 3 and 5,

• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Paul Yensen

Yensen was on the side of the taxpayers on the levy vote.   Schmidt wasn’t.

In District 2, there are two Democrats running.  The first is Jim Kennedy, who was defeated by John Jung in District 5 two years after Yensen defeated Jung.

The second is Ridgefield businessman (The Framery) and almost lifetime resident Jim Roden, who seems poised to run as the “anti-Koehler.”

I’m leaving out District 4, the one that has northern McHenry Township, plus Richmond and Burton Townships in the northeast corner of McHenry County.

A hard-charging Democrat has filed, Mary Margaret Maule.

There are GOP six candidates running there.  None were involved in the secret meeting.

The only one who voted for the tax hike who is running for re-election is Sue Draftcorn.

= = = = =

See “Who Voted to Raise Your County Taxes?“

The rumor has been going around that Shawn Green, a former President of the Huntley School Board, may run in the Republican primary for McHenry County Board.

When I saw him at the McHenry Country Club Republican Party Play Day, I asked.

The answer was, “Probably.”

"Probably" a McHenry County Board candidate Shawn Green and "running hard" candidate John O'Neill converse at Republican Play Day. Both men are new fathers. Green has a daughter named Emily and O'Neill's newest is Teddy.

I asked if I could put that in an article. His answer: “Probably.”

I told him he only got one “probably.”

Green lives in Coral Township, which is in the most rural County Board district.

Northwest Herald reporter Kevin Craver, who is the paper’s County Board reporter, mentions an interesting aspect of District 6 politics in his response to Board Chairman Ken Koehler’s response to Craver’s complaint about Koehler’s and several members’ having violated the Open Meetings Act during the reapportionment process.

I reprint that portion of the Craver letter sent to the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor below:

Click to enlarge.

Note especially the third paragraph about possible implications for “growth politics” in McHenry County:

“One of the proposed changes in the alternative map would have put several heavily developed prprecincts–in a town where population jumped 324 percent in a decade from 5,730 residents to to more than 24,000–into a district that is predominantly farmland and open space.  Sever of the private meetings attendees have significant real estate and land development interests.  Likewise, the district’s four representatives have historically fought encroaching development.”

It couldn’t be characterized as “transparent,” but the secret meeting the McHenry County Board held on Feb. 14, 2011, to discuss legal bills from Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan doesn’t qualify as “Illegal.’

Former McHenry County Board member Lou Anne Majewski filed a complaint about it on March 28th with the Public Access Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office about the closed door session.

In a letter dated June 3, 2011, Assistant Public Access Counselor Amanda Lundeen ruled that the Board was discussing “pending litigation.” Weighing in on the matter is the fact that the County is an intervenor in the case involving the appointment of the special prosecutor. Majewski argued that the Appellate Prosecutor was the intervenor.

Majewski also argued that the meeting concerned the payment of the special prosecutor’s bills in his criminal case against McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, which she contended was not eligible to hide from the public.

The Public Access Counselor’s Office ruled that the resolution concerning Tonigan’s bill was discussed “only as a part of the Board’s overall litigation strategy”… and, therefore, was “proper” to discuss in private.
Prior to issuing the opinion, AG Office staff read the minutes of the Executive Session and listened to a tape of the meeting behind closed doors.

Yesterday, Kevin Craver wrote an article for the Northwest Herald in which three members of the McHenry County Board’s Legislative Committee were reprorted to have met in private.

The Open Meetings Act provides that a majority of no committee may meet in private and, in any event, must give 48 hours notice.

Democrat Kathy Bergan Schmitt told the paper that such action was “inappropriate.”

The three committee members involved were Marc Munaretto, John Jung and Nick Provenzano.

Munaretto said that the three were not in the room at the same time, that when a third one came in another left.

The NW Herald has referred the matter to the Public Access Counselor, the article says.

The top of the District 158 Agenda says that May 2nd is Thursday.

Headings on all three pages of what is, I presume, tonight’s swearing in ceremony for the Huntley School Board are labeled “Thursday, May 2, 2011.”

Mistakes happen, but I wonder if this one means tonight’s meeting will not meet the notice requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

David Moore sits in the front row unobtrusively taping a Grafton Township Board meeting. From left to right at the table are Grafton Township Trustees Barb Murphy, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon, all of whom voted to banish videographers, photographers and those making audio recordings to the back of the room. Reporter Pete Gonigam sits to his far right taking notes. Trustee Rob LaPorta left the meeting early.

Just as whites were more privileged than blacks on Montgomery Alabama, buses, those trying to video or audio tape and photograph Grafton Township meetings seem to be now less equal than print reporters with pencil and pad.

This picture of David Moore was taken at a December, 2009, Grafton Township Board meeting. Donna McMahon and attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer sit to his right.

The Public Access Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office has issued a non-binding ruling to yours truly and Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore seemingly affirming the resolution passed on April 8, 2010, restricting

“the use of audio and video recording equipment and photography equipment to either the final row of seats or behind the final row of seats in the meeting room,”

as Assistant Public Access Counselor Steve Silverman puts it in his letter of April 14, 2011.

David Moore tapes from the front row. Note how he is not obstructing anyone's view of the meeting.

When I received a communication asking if I had any rebuttal to what was sent in by former Grafton Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer of the law firm Ancel Glink, you can bet I did.

You can read it here.

But, it apparently fell short.

The “Determination” is not a binding opinion, so it cannot be appealed to Circuit Court under Administrative Review Act.

The Determination, in which I have separated the sentences to make it easier to read on a screen, follows:

Determination

Section 2. 05 of OMA provides that “any person may record the proceedings at meetings required to be open by this Act by tape, film or other means. The authority holding the meeting shall prescribe reasonable rules to govern the right to make such recordings.”

5 ILCS 140/ 2.05. In an informal opinion ( a copy of which is attached hereto), the Office of the Attorney General previously advised that ” reasonable rules” under Section 2. 05 are ” guidelines which protect the integrity of a public meeting and those participating in it” and “guidelines that prevent interference with the overall decorum and proceedings of a meeting.”

Thus, the right of the public to record open meetings should only be limited pursuant to prescribed rules of the public body, and only to the extent truly necessary to prevent disruptions or safety hazards.

Based on the available information, it appears that the Board’ s restriction on the use of photography and recording equipment constituted a reasonable rule governing the right to record under Section 2. 05 of OMA.

The meeting minutes show that the Board member who made the motion to approve the rule indicated that Board members had been distracted during meetings by close range flash photography.

At an October meeting Trustee Gerry McMahon got so out of control that Trustee Barb Murphy (on the left) moved to censure him. The motion passed.

The restriction limited Mr. Skinner’ s choice of angles for photographing Board members, but did not bar Mr. Skinner or any other individual from photographing or recording meetings.

This shot of the meeting room shows the amount of space behind the tables where the public officials sit.

We also note that, in light of the relatively small size of the meeting rooms used by the Board, restricting the use of photography and recording equipment to either the last row of seats or behind the last row of seats constituted a relatively minor limitation which did not substantively interfere with the statutory right to record meetings.

Therefore, we conclude based on the information at our disposal that the action taken by the Board on April 8, 2010 to restrict the placement of individuals operating recording and photography equipment did not violate the public’ s right to record Board meetings under Section 2. 05 of OMA.

Here's a view of a regular meeting room from the back.

This Board subsequently enacted a comprehensive ordinance to establish rules for recording, including a similar restriction on the placement of individuals operating video and photography equipment.

That ordinance is not at issue in this determination letter as the Board enacted it after Mr. Skinner filed his Request for Review.

A November, 2009, shot of the officials' table and space behind.

However, Mr. Skinner objected to parts of the ordinance in his reply to the Township’ s response to his allegations and we are concerned that certain portions may constitute unreasonably restrictive rules under Section 2.05.

A view of the not-so-small room from its back.

Most notably, the ordinance requires that individuals provide advance notice of their intent to record meetings by signing a sign- in sheet, and authorizes the Board to ” prohibit the recording of any audience member who objects to being recorded.”

It is not readily apparent why those rules and certain other restrictions in the ordinance are necessary to prevent disruptions or safety hazards at Board meetings.

We strongly suggest that the Board review the entire ordinance for compliance with Section 2. 05 of OMA based on the standard for ” reasonable rules” set forth above.

This letter will serve to close this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (312) 814- 6756.

Sincerely,

Steve Silverman
Assistant Public Access Counseloriz

Former McHenry County Board member Lou Anne Majewski filed an Open Meetings complaint against the McHenry County Board for going into closed session to discuss a resolution drafted by a county board committee.  Majewski says Chairman Ken Koehler said the public was excluded because the board members would be discussing litigation.

Here it is:

Lou Anne Majewski's Open Meetings complaint filed by email with the Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General's Office.

The response from the Attorney General’s Public Access Division was previously published here.

McHenry County’s response can be found here.