Time Off

I had expected to post a number of times since my last post. However, illness and personal matter have kept me from posting and have also kept me from attending a number of city council meetings and work sessions. I still have some items on which to write and look forward to doing so.

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 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.

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.

Citizen Action

The situation with water rates has motivated local residents to get active and be heard. Not only are they making their voices heard on the issue of astronomically higher water and sewer rates, but they have also brought the issue of water quality to light. People are posting on the internet, going door-to-door talking to neighbors, compiling surveys, and packing city council work sessions. This is democracy in action and I hope to see it continue until these issues are resolved and beyond that until Crest Hill once again is run for and by the citizens. This city is not going to get better overnight, but it can get much better.

I am curious though as to how Mayor Churnovic next plans to stifle citizen involvement. I am looking forward to seeing quite a crowd at the next City Council meeting. Of course, I am willing to bet that they will not even consider moving it to a location with adequate parking and seating. That would allow the citizens to observe and participate in the meeting and we can be sure that Mayor Churnovic and certain others on the council do not want to allow that to happen.

Disappointing Mayoral Achievement

The City of Crest Hill has passed a budget that shows the sad state of affairs in the city. The mayor decided earlier this year that a finance committee was not necessary since a City Administrator had been hired. So the City Administrator brought a budget to the City that was over $1.5 million in the red. After slashing and raising fees and rates, it was passed still over $1 million short. So this is what is accomplished without a finance committee. How very sad. I hope the mayor is proud of his brilliant idea.

Some of the blame rests at the City Administrator's feet as well though. He is the one that brought a budget so out of line to the Council in the first place. When I served as a City Administrator, I would never have even considered bringing the City Council an unbalanced budget. And that certainly was not easy in a city that had seen its finances destroyed by years of poor spending and embezzlement. In fact, my aim was to have a budget that had 3% surplus and then to be able to work during the year to keep spending below budget and revenue above it. Even the most fiscally irresponsible person can put together a budget that is over a million dollars short of balancing. However, I believe that a City Administrator is a professional who should bring with them a set of skills in matters such as finance.

The third person bearing some responsibility here is the City Treasurer. While, I have seen nothing to indicate that he is not fulfilling his duties as specified, I think at this time Crest Hill needs something more. I feel that the City Treasurer needs to stand up and be the voice of moderation and reform. I call on him to watch every cent of the budget and not to release a cent of it that is not specifically budgeted. This type of discipline is the best we can hope for the coming months. He also should publicly release all the financial data of the City. This would allow citizens to know what is really going on and may help to spur a public demand for reform. Finally, the Treasurer needs to take a stand and be a leader pushing for fiscal responsibility even beyond what is role is. He should use his office to pound at the problem and keep it on the front burner. He should lead the call for change.

The City Council should never have approved a budget that sends Crest Hill closer to financial ruin. However, they had to work with a budget proposal that was badly out of balance, they lacked input through a finance committee, and they were threatened that State funding would be lost if a budget was not passed before the end of July. If I were in their place, I would have insisted on passing a bare bones balanced budget and then amended it after August 1st.

In summary, Mayor Churnovic and the City Administrator should have been the leaders of improving Crest Hill, instead the City is facing unprecedented financial difficulties because of the choices and actions of these two officials. It is sad that the time for change has come so soon.