Response to an Anonymous Critic, Part II

Here is part two of my response to Anonymous.

Anonymous stated:
P.S. one of the problems with the city is all the residents that have lived here less than 5 years that think the know the city. Maybe you need to go back and see how things were run in this city prior to Churnovic. All of the aldermen/alderwomen under Randich were "yes" people. Nothing got done and if Randich didn't want it it didn't get passed. No matter how good it was for the city.

My response:
In a city in which the majority of its residents have lived here for less than five years this type of comment has no place. I will admit that I do not know how the city was run under Randich. However, the most important thing is not if I know about the Crest Hill of yesteryear, but if I know what good government is. I do know what good government is and I do know what I should expect from a well run local government. That is what I want. If Randich did not deliver good government then, I wish to thank all of you who voted him out of office. However, that does not mean that we should stop demanding better government.

As for my opinions about Mr. Churnovic.... I honestly think that he dominates Crest Hill government in a way that is not healthy for the city and that he is often very dismissive of residents who questions him. However, I think that this comes from the fact that he faced a lot of opposition when first elected and that he feels that he can overcome opposition by using his powers as Mayor. That being said, he is an intelligent man who truly believes that he is doing his best for Crest Hill. I do not think he has ever done anything that he did not fully believe was right and in the public interest. I admire his dedication and determination. I do disagree with some of the things that he has done. However, I have never called for him to be ousted from office, I would prefer to see him focus on making city government more inclusive and open. And I would like to see more moves towards good government in Crest Hill. I do not see any reason why the current Mayor and most of the City Council cannot be the ones to move in that direction. I am neither for or against changing the faces at the head table, I am for changing some of their actions though.

Response to an Anonymous Critic, Part I

I have previously responded to some comments by posting comments myself and I have corresponded with some readers by e-mail. However, there have been some recent comments that I feel should be addressed in their own postings. This first one is being split in half because then last shot that the writer took at me and others deserves to be a subject on its own and in fact is of greater importance than this first item I will respond to. It would be interesting to know who the anonymous commenter was, however he/she did not feel confident enough to leave a name or e-mail address.

Anonymous stated:
You are partially right in regards to the opens meeting act, however, I believe you need a hearning aid because they do say why they are going into a closed session. They may not list each item prior to adjourning to closed session but during the course of the meeting it is mentioned that a executive session is needed. Second - if your truly read the law then you know it is permissable to have an executive session for personnel. Would you like your employer to discuss you in front of everyone, whether it was your evaluation, medical condition for a medical leave or a discpline problem. I think not so get off it. I don't think you mentioned that by "law" you can hold an executive, or closed, session for personnel, litigation, and/or land acquisition. I also belive that by law the minutes from said closed session are available for review after 6 months by filing a freedom of information act. So file away!

My response:
The intent of the law is that the reasons for the closed session are to be part of the motion for the closed session. Off-hand comments during the meeting as to issues on which a closed session is needed are not sufficient.

I never said that it was not permissible to hold a closed session for personnel reasons. I simply stated that not every issue that can be connected to personnel has to be in closed session. I do not think it would be appropriate to discuss an employees medical condition in open session, in fact that may run afoul of medical privacy laws. And I would strongly recommend that discipline and evaluations be done in closed session. However, pay and hours should be in open session. And that does mean that the question of why Employee X is not getting a raise could come up and the answer could be poor performance. And performance issues that are not related to a specific disciplinary action usually should be subject to open discussion.

I certainly do not think that closed sessions are without merit or proper usefulness. I just believe that they should be used sparingly and only when necessary for reasons of protecting key privacy of employees, protecting the city in ongoing legal and financial negotiations and where required by law.