The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners BOFPC has stiffed the City over an Open Meetings Act violation and a direction to schedule training by the City Attorney's office.
Back in May 2009 the BOFPC violated the Open Meetings Act, when it went into Executive Session and failed to make an audio recording of that closed session. Public bodies such as the BOFPC are permitted to meet in private, but a State law requires that such meetings must be audio-recorded. The operative word is "must". It is not optional. And verbatim recordings must be preserved for a minimum of 18 months. According to the City Attorney, "there are no exceptions to this requirement."
The City sent a very sternly worded letter to the three members of the Commission and its attorney, stating "Transparency in government is a core value of the City of Woodstock."
In the May 19, 2009, letter to the BOFPC and its attorney, the City Attorney informed the Commission that "the City" (read, the City Manager and the City Council) had asked the City Attorney's office to make a presentation to the Commission on the requirements of and compliance with the Open Meetings Act at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
Since the date of that letter, the BOFPC has held meetings on June 1, June 11, July 9, July 21, August 19, September 8 and December 7. Some of these were "special" meetings.
If they are going to get hung up on "regularly" scheduled meetings, then that list of meetings can be cut down to June 1, September 8 and December 7. The BOFPC has canceled the December 7 Regular Meeting.
Why is a City Commission allowed to ignore a direction by the City Manager and City Council to schedule a critical training session on an important Illinois law? When the City Attorney wrote to them that the City had "asked" him to make a presentation, it wasn't like they had an option of refusing. "Ask" was a polite word that they should have understood as "told" or "ordered" or "directed".
In a recent follow-up about this in October, I was told that the City would "remind them to try and schedule it" (the training).
Apparently, that reminder wasn't clear enough for them. What happened after the BOFPC was reminded? It canceled its next regular scheduled meeting.
As the wise Yoda said, "Try not! Do or do not. There is no try." Too often, nothing happens when you "try".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Who enforces the Open Meetings Act ? Should Lisa Madigan be called ? Bianchi ? Who ?
If there was an unquestionable breaking of the Law, someone needs to be prosecuted. Especially if they can't even comply with a simple "slap on the wrist" response from the City Council.
Initially, I was pleased with the City's prompt and stern response.
However, since they turned off the heat on the BOFPC and have let it slide, I am not so pleased. In fact, I am displeased.
There seem to be three remedies, one of which is prosecution. One would think they would like to avoid the embarrassment and expense of defense.
Post a Comment