An Additional Purpose

As everyone can see, the frequency of my posting has decreased as time has passed. This does not mean that I find any less to comment on or that it has been a futile effort. Instead, I find myself with many ideas of what I would like to post on, but let too much time pass that topics lose their timeliness.

In addition, I have seen how poorly the city communicates its agendas and minutes to the public. A good explanation of why agendas are not available on-line has yet to be offered. It would take the Clerk no more time to post an agenda on-line as it takes to tack one up in City Hall. Also, much of the City's business takes place in work sessions that are not broadcast, covered by the media, or have minutes distributed.

This has led me to the decision to post following each Council meeting and work session and comment on the happenings of that meeting. These will not be complete minutes of the meetings or even cover the entire meeting. It will address at least what I feel is the most important issue that was raised. It will accurate, but it will not be neutral. These postings will still be my opinions of what is taking place. So the moral of this story is check back frequently.

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.

Closed Session = Secret Government

Anyone who watches Crest Hill city council meetings has certainly noticed that there seems to be a closed session at every meeting and that when some council members ask questions the response is that it is a matter for closed session. Well, I am very uncomfortable with closed sessions and feel that government should be as open and transparent as possible. So I decided to read the actual law and to read legal opinions interpreting it. As should be expected the first thing I learned was that Crest Hill does not follow the law.

The motion for a closed session MUST state which of the specific exclusions in the Open Meetings law covers the matter that will be discussed in closed session. If they are meeting to discuss employee contracts, they must say that. If they are meeting to discuss a pending lawsuit, then they must say that. They cannot simply state that a closed session is needed without any further information.

A closed session is never required. The city council can discuss any matter they wish to in open session. If Alderman Vershay wants to know who worked overtime, when they worked, and for how many hours, the City Treasurer can and should answer that question instead of deferring it to closed session. The Open Meetings law states a limited number of topics than MAY be discussed in closed session, but does not limit what can be discussed in open session. In addition, there is no obligation of city council members to keep secret what happens in closed session. The law does not prohibit anyone in a closed session from disclosing any matter discussed and specifically states that there is no penalty or retribution for disclosure.

It is time for our city government to comply with the letter and the spirit of the law. I call upon the Mayor and the City Clerk to ensure that all future closed sessions are properly held and to inform the Council and the public that any subject may be discussed in open session if so desired. I also call upon the City Clerk to release full transcripts of all illegally held closed sessions. And finally, in order to fulfill the spirit of the law, I ask any City Council member who believes in open government to speak publicly about anything that occurs in closed session that should not be secret.