Ersel Schuster
Former McHenry County Board member Ersel Schuster sheds some light on a key rules vote for the next County Board. It’s chairman, of course, will be elected at large.
Of all the frustrating and disgusting examples of our elected officials at work!
PLEASE, take a few minutes and listen to the McHenry County Board’s discussion on one small part of the proposed board rules; 15.2.G.1 on the 7/7/15 meeting agenda. [You will be able to find the recording here when it is posted.]
For decades the county board has operated under a rule where the person aspiring to the board chairmanship promised fellow members special committee assignments and committee chairmanships to secure their votes for the board chairman. [This is not unlike that happens in the Illinois General Assembly.]
Track record shows that with enough members being given their choice positions, the “aspirant” is all but assured the votes to affirm the board chairman.
With that tight-knit group, issue after issue of the chairman’s choosing is approved.
More than two years ago, a board committee worked to break this chain of events by curbing the power structure by re-writing the board rules.
These suggestions were squashed at that time.
Today, after a painfully drawn-out discussion and amendment after amendment, the board actually did the right thing by approving board rules with those original suggestions.
They have now given the entire board a more open and honest process.
In other words, the “deck” should no longer be stacked as in the past.
Thank you… to the County Board Members supporting this action.
Coming out of these discussions, a curious situation came to light.
It seems a notion was floated indicating that if 4 members of a county board district met and/or discussed which of the four would represent the district on the Committee on Committees, there would be a violation of the open meetings act.
First off, at this particular time, the board members have not been sworn into office.
Second, once the organizational meeting is called, they are simply 4 of 24 voting members.
By no stretch of the imagination would their meeting be considered a majority of a quorum and thus violate the Act.
Third, if two members of the district were on a particular committee; and, these two members meet with the other 2 district members to discuss issues surrounding that particular committee’s work… there is still no violation of the Open Meetings Act.
These two members would be 2 of 7 committee members and would be able to discuss any topic they choose.
Would someone point out for me, where in the Open Meetings Act, I can find the suggested violation?
I agree with you Ersel and pointed this out twice in the discussions. In order to fall under the Open Meetings Act, you have to be a “public body” or a subdivision of a “public body”. Since the District Caucuses are not called into being until the day of the organizational meeting, and since at least two of them are not sworn in to the new terms until that time, I do not think that the Act applies and any two could have a conversation about who they would move to be on the committee on committees.
You cannot be a member of a group that does not yet exist.
==”Coming out of these discussions, a curious situation came to light.
It seems a notion was floated indicating that if 4 members of a county board district met and/or discussed which of the four would represent the district on the Committee on Committees, there would be a violation of the open meetings act.
First off, at this particular time, the board members have not been sworn into office.
Second, once the organizational meeting is called, they are simply 4 of 24 voting members.
By no stretch of the imagination would their meeting be considered a majority of a quorum and thus violate the Act.
Third, if two members of the district were on a particular committee; and, these two members meet with the other 2 district members to discuss issues surrounding that particular committee’s work… there is still no violation of the Open Meetings Act.
These two members would be 2 of 7 committee members and would be able to discuss any topic they choose.”==
Why, after reading this, am I reminded of the Great Loyalty Oath Crusade from the book “Catch 22”?
Why is Gottemoller issuing his ‘legal opinions’ at a Board meeting?
Is that not the job of the States Attorney’s office?
Why is he usurping the job of Bianchi’s office?
Pay attention voters, if Gottemoller is elected for Chairman of the Board he will make Chris Lauzen in neighboring Kane County look like a ‘nice guy’.
Just look at Gottemoller’s announcement for running for Chairman, he appears to be on one huge ego trip.
He (imho) is not capable of ‘serving’ the people of McHenry County.
I would support Mike Tryon over Gottemoller.