Letter: Fourth Ward Resident Tells Aldermen Not to Betray Public Trust a Second Time
City of Elmhurst was deemed in violation of the Open Meetings Act. The city must release the records of those meetings because it has "an overarching ethical duty to the public."
Dear Acting Elmhurst Mayor and Aldermen:
As you know, the Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General’s office has recently determined that the City of Elmhurst was in violation of the Open Meetings Act during closed session meetings on Sept 10 and Sept 17, 2012. The improper discussions evidently involved the Addison Street development project, now under active consideration by the Zoning Commission.
The City has responded to the notice of violation by asserting that it was “advised that the topics discussed were proper under the exemptions to the Open Meetings Act.” Based on the opinion of the Attorney General’s office, it seems that the City was poorly advised. Furthermore, despite City protestations to the contrary, the determination that the City has acted in violation of state statute stands as the conclusion of a properly conducted legal process.
A clear remedy to the violation is given in the opinion: “The City Council is directed to immediately release the portions of the closed session minutes and the closed session verbatim recordings relating to the discussions in question to the public.”
Release of the minutes alone, as seems to be under consideration by the City based on the published agenda for the Council meeting on March 4, 2013, will be insufficient to remedy the violation. The public will not be able to gain a full understanding of the discussions that occurred without release of the verbatim audio recordings in addition to the written minutes, both without redaction as to the discussions in question.
As emphasized repeatedly by the City, the issued opinion is advisory and non-binding. Thus, the City cannot be legally compelled to comply with the recommended remedy should it choose to defy the direction. The question is whether the City respects the system sufficiently to follow voluntarily the directive it has been given. Failure to perform will send the clear and enduring message that protection of private interests is of greater value to the City than service of the public good.
The City has already betrayed the public trust by holding improper discussions in closed session. Refusal to release both the minutes and the complete audiotapes of those discussions would be a further betrayal of the public trust. I call upon the City to comply with the direction stated in the opinion by immediately releasing to the public full, unabridged versions of the minutes and the audiotapes of the discussions in question. The City should act to remedy this matter in full not because of an enforceable legal requirement that it do so but because of an overarching ethical duty to the public.
Respectfully,
—Tamara Brenner, 4th ward resident
Let Patch save you time. Get local stories delivered right to your inbox or smartphone with our free newsletter. Fast signup here. For a different take, like us on Facebook.
Bob Ganoosh
11:13 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
This is the most well put together, thoughtful opinion on this subject I have yet to read. Well done!
E Rutledge
8:57 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
@ Steve L, perhaps you can answer some questions for me about this whole meetings act/transparency issue. i know you are on record saying credible stuff like 'gutenkauf looked like the only one up there who knew what she was talking about', and "she's also the only candidate that came to my door', and 'they must have known it was illegal since gutenkauf and bram both said so and pezza didn't even attend'. so here's the question: if gutenkauf and bram both KNEW the first meeting (9/10) was illegal, then why did they both VOTE YES to go into Closed Session for the second knowingly illegal meeting on 9/17. and if pezza did not attend the 9/17 meeting, how does she even know what went on in that second meeting. isn't that the text book definition of being deceptive (i.e. not transparent; or maybe we should call this being "bram-sparent") ? voting YES to go into a session that you KNOW in advance is going to be illegal ? it seems to me that if gutenkauf had any true transparent principles, she (and bram) would have voted NO on the motion to go into Closed Session on September 17th. so please answer that question Steve L since you appear to be her new campaign spokesman.
not mike hasssan
9:37 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
i like this new term 'bram-sparency'; it deflects attention away from my lady. so websters would define bram-sparency as "the pre-planned coordination of two or more council members for the purpose of forcing the disclosure of Closed Session/confidential information under the guise of putting a little sunshine on a meeting that may or may not have veered off course" - i like this term; i really do. let me run this by Rudi so he can do another another "non-newsworthy" focus group survey on the voters.
Dave
10:31 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
As I read Madigan's opinion letter, the Open Meetings Act contains an exemption that allows closed session discusssions of matters "directly tied to the setting of a price" for property contemplated to be sold. The discussions Alderman Pezza complained about apparently related to a possible "ballpark" selling price, but the Attorney General thought the discussions were not sufficiently specific as to dollar amounts to be deemed "directly tied to the setting of a price." On that basis Madigan's office said the discussions did not fall within the Act's exemption. So it appears Madigan acknowledged that the discussions concerned a selling price, but thought they were not sufficiently specific to be "directly tied to the setting of a price" (and therefore were not exempt). Now we obviously do not have the full benefit of the record, but this sounds like a bit of hair-splitting on Madigan's part. At a minimum, it does not seem to be the blatant "breach of trust" some have portrayed it to be.
not Mike Madigan
11:51 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
now "dave", you are not being fair. my daughter's office is simply being overwhelmed with FOIA and other requests based on the new law i wrote to shine a light on all you evil-doers in dupage. just because the nice young lady that authored this opinion has been a lawyer for only 5 years does not mean that she knows less than storino. and even though her very carefully researched 8 paragraph letter contains no direct quotes from any Alderpeople, nor any specifics on what was actually said at which meeting, that doesn't mean her summaries are too general. look lisa's office simply cannot hire government bureaucrat lawyers fast enough. remember, even though most of our public access attorneys are not even 30 years old does not mean that we at "madigan insolvency inc" are not devoted to the concept of transparency.
Steve Randag
1:39 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
Voluntarily releasing an un-redacted copy of the 9/10 and 9/17 city council meetings would potentially save the city & it's citizens time and legal fees. Clearly, as it stands now, a citizen must otherwise question why the city council felt the need to have close meetings. That is to say, the citizens suspect "insider" deals. Stephen
Dave
2:56 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
Apparently the council will vote on that tonight.
Susan Smentek
3:58 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
You must be joking if you think Gutenkauf and Pezza are two of the worst aldermen in Illinois. They are two of the hardest working aldermen in town, working for their constituents and not for developers.