Rob Sherman News

News about social injustice
and what I'm doing to stop it.

Serious Journalism, Professionally Written

      
Click on any picture for a larger image.

         October 18, 2010        

Illinois Public Access Counselor condemns
Minutes of gov't meetings that lack specificity

This month, I've been stressing the importance of having Minutes for Buffalo Grove Village meetings that comply with the standards set in the Illinois Open Meetings Act.  That principle has proven itself correct with regards to the concern that Buffalo Grove Village Clerk Jan Sirabian had supposedly lost copies of Village Board meetings.

Trustee Steve Trilling responded to the concern about those records at the October 4th meeting of the Buffalo Grove Village Board.  The Minutes of that meeting reveal, on Page 4, that Steve stated that video tapes and DVDs of Village Board meetings are maintained by staff, and not by the Village Clerk.  Therefore, the Village Clerk did not lose copies of Village Board meetings.

We would not have known that if Jan hadn't put it in the Minutes.  Only the handful of people who attended the meeting would have known.  Now, everybody has the opportunity to know about it.

This emphasizes, yet again, that incomplete Minutes by Jan can lead to a lot of mis-information and damaged reputations, including her own.

The office in state government that addresses questions about the Open Meetings Act is the Public Access Counselor in the office of the Illinois Attorney General.  On Friday, I spoke with the Illinois Public Access Counselor, Cara Smith, and also with Michael Luke, the person who specializes in questions about Minutes at the Public Access Counselor's office.  He tells me that he's been specializing in questions about Minutes for three decades.

According to Mr. Luke, specificity is what the Minutes statute of the Illinois Open Meetings Act calls for.  Specificity in the Minutes is important, according to Mr. Luke because, in many cases, this is the only record of what took place at a government meeting.  Without specificity, a record of what took place is gone, forever.

In the proposed revised Minutes of the meeting from September 27th, Jan continues to state merely that discussions took place, without specificity as to who said what about the topics that were discussed.

The proposed revised Minutes of the three-hour-long meeting have now expanded from one page to still only two pages.  Instead of specificity, Jan says things like, "Discussion followed, with staff answering questions from Board members."

With regards to the important and controversial issue of whether our property taxes should be raised to help subsidize the operating cost of the two municipal golf courses, or if golfers, instead, should pay for it themselves, Jan wrote, "Staff presented a report," and "Board discussion followed, with staff answering questions from the Board."

That's it?  What did they say, Jan?  Who wants to raise our taxes and who doesn't?

With regards to the important and controversial issue of whether the gasoline tax at the pump should be raised, Jan wrote, "Discussion on the proposal ensued."

That's it?  What did they say, Jan?  Who wants to raise our taxes and who doesn't?

I will renew my objection to Jan's form of Minutes at tonight's Village Board meeting, by asking that her proposed revised Minutes for the September 27th meeting be rejected by the Village Board of Trustees until such time as Jan provides specificity as to who said what about the topics.

If the Board rejects my objection, then I'll file a formal complaint against Jan with the Public Access Counselor.  Prosecution by the Illinois Attorney General could follow.  Conviction for failure to comply with the Open Meetings Act law carries a sentence of up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,500.  It's a Class C Misdemeanor.

This isn't a joke, Jan.  You can't just blow this off with impunity.

It doesn't need to be verbatim transcripts, but lack of specificity leads to unnecessary speculation of who said what and mis-information about what was said.

There is room for a reasonable balance on this issue.  I only request that the Minutes of the September 27th meeting contain the same type of specificity that Jan includes in the Minutes of Village Board meetings.

Since Jan has made it clear that she won't do that, I've announced that I am running for Village Clerk in the Municipal Election of April, 2011.  We'll see whether the voters want Minutes that comply with the specificity that the Minutes statute of the Illinois Open Meetings Act calls for, or if they are satisfied with Jan merely stating that a discussion took place, without Jan saying who said what during those discussions.

Previous Rob Sherman News stories about this subject matter:

Thursday, October 14:  Village Clerk says losing keys to Village Hall is no big deal

Tuesday, October 12:  Sherman declares candidacy for Buffalo Grove Village Clerk

Monday, October 11:  Sherman renews call for Buffalo Grove Village Clerk to resign

Wednesday, October 6:  Term Limits of 32 years proposed for Buffalo Grove elected officials

Tues, 10/5: New scandal regarding Buffalo Grove "Minutes": Was it Finance Committee or Comm of the Whole?

Monday, October 4:  Buffalo Grove Village Clerk doesn't get it in dispute over meeting Minutes

Sunday, October 3:  Buffalo Grove Trustee backs Sherman in dispute over meeting Minutes

Saturday, October 2:  Illinois Open Meetings Act backs Sherman in dispute over Buffalo Grove meeting Minutes

Friday, October 1:  Sherman to challenge Minutes of Buffalo Grove Committee of the Whole meeting

Please tell your friends about Rob Sherman News through your social media networks and word of mouth.

E-mail comments about my stories to me at rob@robsherman.com to let me know what you think.  Send personal comments, comments unrelated to this story or notification of typos that you see in any of my posts to the same e-mail address.

Thanks for visiting Rob Sherman News.

Your voluntary subscription to Rob Sherman News is appreciated to help offset the substantial cost of my work.  Thanks, in advance, for your participation in this manner.

Help support my work by purchasing a Rob Sherman News Mini-Crank Flashlight for $20.  It never needs batteries.  You just wind it up a few times and it works.  Remember, you're not paying twenty bucks just for a flashlight.  You are helping me to shine a light on and stop unconstitutional government policies and other catastrophically bad ideas by government and the private sector.

That's the value of what you are purchasing, and that's the difference between Rob Sherman Advocacy and most of the other groups.  They talk about the problems of state/church separation.  I do something about it and get the violations of your constitutional rights stopped.  Besides, there aren't that many of the Rob Sherman News Mini-Crank Flashlights, so you might be able to make a lot of money selling this rare collector's item in a few years.