Dorr Township responsibility

There is an excellent letter to the editor in the morning's Northwest Herald from Jane Collins. Jane is an attorney and is an excellent elector/voter/resident of Dorr Township who has been holding the feet of the elected officials to the fire over expansion plans. She served on a citizens' committee and stuck up for voters at the April Annual Town Meeting.

Dorr officials have been ducking behind the skirts of the Town Attorney, or should I more correctly say, behind the pants of the attorney?

This has caused me to think about what the role of a township attorney is. He is the legal advisor to the town. He is not a decision-maker. He is not elected by the voters. The attorney gives legal advice to the trustees and to the supervisor.

So, first the elected officials must ask him for advice. If they don't ask, he doesn't (shouldn't) tell. And, when they ask him for advice, they are seeking his professional legal advice, not his personal opinion. That's why they pay him for his advice.

I am reminded of my life-insurance selling days in Denver. From time to time a prospective client would tell me he was going to ask his attorney whether he should buy the life insurance that I was recommending.

I'd often ask if he was going to pay his attorney for that advice. The answers frequently were along the line that his attorney was his neighbor or friend or relative and that he didn't charge for it. I'd tell him that, then, the advice was worth exactly what he was paying for it.

I never believed that his attorney ought to tell him whether or not he should buy the insurance. Instead, he should explain the consequences of buying it or not buying it. That's the role of the attorney. And, if the attorney had all the facts of the prospect's economic situation, he'd arrive at the same decision: buy the insurance you need.

It's like if you are going to rob a bank. You shouldn't ask your attorney if you should rob the bank. You should ask him what the legal consequences could be for robbing the bank!

And then I'd tell the prospect that he ought to pay his attorney for his legal advice and get it in writing on the lawyer's letterhead. That way, if the prospect relied on the lawyer's opinion and did not buy the insurance, and then died and his family needed the money, the family could sue the lawyer and, effectively, make the lawyer his insurance company.

The township trustees must be asking the town attorney, "How can we withhold this information from the township residents?" And then the attorney is telling the officials to deny FOIA requests. The denials and appeals now go to the Illinois Attorney General, and the count is running against the township (and the township attorney's advice). And the trustees are griping about the legal fees to stonewall residents.

Well, trustees, stop running to the attorney and stop trying to keep the information from the public. You ought to be getting the message by now that the public is entitled to the information that you are spending its money to obtain and on which you will make future decisions.

I can appreciate the delicate position in which the township attorney might find himself. If you ask him how you can refuse to release information and if he tells you that you can't, then you might decide you need a different attorney. I'm sure he likes working for you.

In the future, ask him how likely you are going to lose your case at the Attorney General Public Access Counselor level. I suspect he'll tell you, "Quite likely."