The Crest Hill city council tonight held a work session to look at ways in which to raise more revenue. They discussed many item at length including higher fines, fees, and utility taxes. One of the taxes they are looking at is expanding the amusement tax to cover Cottonwood Farm's Halooween celebration.
For the past several years, Crest Hill has been after Cottonwood Farm for a variety of issues. I do not know when or why they decided that they had it out for this long time local business. No other Crest Hill business advertises as widely as they do and makes an effort to bring people from as large an area to Crest Hill as they do. From billboards in Chicago to crop images that are seen by passing airplanes. This business does more to bring attention to Crest Hill than any other business. Yet, the Mayor and his allies target this business more so than any other in the city.
How is it that the business they want to drive away is a farm that provides entertainment, greenspace, advertising, and tax revenues to the city while being a good neighbor and citizen; while thet happily allow preditory payday loan stores proliferate?
I think it is time to demand some answers and to recoginize that this is not an attempt to raise revenue, but is just the lastest assault on this particular business.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Forum for New Libraries
On Thursday, March 6, the Des Plaines Valley Public Library District held a forum at Richland School to discuss the current status and future needs of its libraries. The forum concentrated on the Crest Hill branch and on the deficiencies of the building and current level of funding. The purpose of the forum seemed to be to sell the community on the need for a new library. However, no further thought went into it, so we were all left without a sense of where things go from here.
The assumption is that a new library was needed. Actually, three new libraries, one for each Crest Hill, Lockport, and Romeoville would be needed. We also know that the district has been hiring consultants to evaluate the current buildings and look at what sort of new facilities are needed. What we do not know is what type of time frame is being contemplated for future action. We do not have even a clue of how much these new libraries are going to cost or what that will mean for tax rates. And we do not know what these libraries would contain or look like. All of this is important information that will have an effect on people’s opinions and feelings.
Even among the small group of people who attending this forum, a range of positions could begin to be seen. It is my feeling that this lack of information intensified negative feelings and weakened positive feelings. This will continue to be the case as time goes on and will form the basis of long-term opinions if solid facts do not start being presented soon. There are many in this community that cannot afford higher taxes and are especially opposed to anything that they consider wasteful. These people will need to be won over to the need for a library and without knowing specifics of what is being proposed will soon imagine a building that is huge, architecturally complex, state of the art, and very expensive. This idea that they imagined will be what they will be voting on, not the reality of what will be proposed. And those who support the idea of a better library system will soon find that it is hard to get behind an abstract idea.
Speaking for myself, I strongly support a new library. I oppose most tax increases and have rarely seen a referendum that I like. However, I would vote to double the library portion of my tax bill without reservation, as long as I got a library that had adequate computer resources, comfortable areas in which to read, and a convenient location. There are many other features to a library, but these are the ones that have value to me. Until, I know that this new facility will meet my needs, it is hard for me to strongly support it. I certainly do not oppose a new library, but I am left feeling less than enthusiastic.
The library board needs to quickly take the next step and decide among three options; maintain the existing libraries, renovate and modernize the existing libraries, or build new libraries. Maintaining the existing facilities without major renovation and modernization will lead to a slow decay and death of our local libraries. However, renovating and modernizing them would cost a great deal of money to add very little in terms of space or functionality. Deciding to build new libraries is the only sensible choice if we want to have quality facilities at a moderate cost for the coming decades.
If the library board were to agree and make the decision to build new libraries, they should then explore what the communities want in their library. This phase should also look at what the future of libraries might be, in order to design facilities for tomorrow instead of for yesterday or even today. We are only a century removed from inaccessible library stacks, only a few decades removed from libraries as silent, studious places, and only a decade removed from libraries having just a few computers in a side room with limited access. It would be foolish to think that 20 or 40 years down the road, libraries will look much like they do today. This is the time for public comment on individual ideas and on overall plans.
Once, the library board, with citizen’s input, has decided on what they feel is needed, a referendum should follow quickly. A long drawn out process, builds apathy instead of support. Trying to drum up support for replacing the current libraries is more difficult that trying to get support for a specific new libraries. Show us what you want to build and tell us what you want to spend.
The assumption is that a new library was needed. Actually, three new libraries, one for each Crest Hill, Lockport, and Romeoville would be needed. We also know that the district has been hiring consultants to evaluate the current buildings and look at what sort of new facilities are needed. What we do not know is what type of time frame is being contemplated for future action. We do not have even a clue of how much these new libraries are going to cost or what that will mean for tax rates. And we do not know what these libraries would contain or look like. All of this is important information that will have an effect on people’s opinions and feelings.
Even among the small group of people who attending this forum, a range of positions could begin to be seen. It is my feeling that this lack of information intensified negative feelings and weakened positive feelings. This will continue to be the case as time goes on and will form the basis of long-term opinions if solid facts do not start being presented soon. There are many in this community that cannot afford higher taxes and are especially opposed to anything that they consider wasteful. These people will need to be won over to the need for a library and without knowing specifics of what is being proposed will soon imagine a building that is huge, architecturally complex, state of the art, and very expensive. This idea that they imagined will be what they will be voting on, not the reality of what will be proposed. And those who support the idea of a better library system will soon find that it is hard to get behind an abstract idea.
Speaking for myself, I strongly support a new library. I oppose most tax increases and have rarely seen a referendum that I like. However, I would vote to double the library portion of my tax bill without reservation, as long as I got a library that had adequate computer resources, comfortable areas in which to read, and a convenient location. There are many other features to a library, but these are the ones that have value to me. Until, I know that this new facility will meet my needs, it is hard for me to strongly support it. I certainly do not oppose a new library, but I am left feeling less than enthusiastic.
The library board needs to quickly take the next step and decide among three options; maintain the existing libraries, renovate and modernize the existing libraries, or build new libraries. Maintaining the existing facilities without major renovation and modernization will lead to a slow decay and death of our local libraries. However, renovating and modernizing them would cost a great deal of money to add very little in terms of space or functionality. Deciding to build new libraries is the only sensible choice if we want to have quality facilities at a moderate cost for the coming decades.
If the library board were to agree and make the decision to build new libraries, they should then explore what the communities want in their library. This phase should also look at what the future of libraries might be, in order to design facilities for tomorrow instead of for yesterday or even today. We are only a century removed from inaccessible library stacks, only a few decades removed from libraries as silent, studious places, and only a decade removed from libraries having just a few computers in a side room with limited access. It would be foolish to think that 20 or 40 years down the road, libraries will look much like they do today. This is the time for public comment on individual ideas and on overall plans.
Once, the library board, with citizen’s input, has decided on what they feel is needed, a referendum should follow quickly. A long drawn out process, builds apathy instead of support. Trying to drum up support for replacing the current libraries is more difficult that trying to get support for a specific new libraries. Show us what you want to build and tell us what you want to spend.
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.
Monday, February 11, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, October 26, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
