Dorr Township meeting - pointed, but civil

The monthly meeting of Dorr Township was held last night, attended by all elected officials, the Township attorney, and the hardcore base of residents who are interested in what is happening.

Dorr Township has issued a Letter of Intent and paid $1,000 into an escrow account for a pending real estate transaction that was discussed last month (December) and this month in Executive Session. The Board was asked how it could do that, when no action was taken in Open Session. Attorney Mark Saladin explained that "no final action" was taken and that an Exemption in the law allows a decision by the Board in Executive Session regarding real estate transactions as a "non-final" action. In response to a question about any liability to the Township if the deal doesn't go through, Attorney Saladin said the Township has no liability under the Letter of Intent.

According to the Attorney General's information, topics for Executive Session can include
- "the purchase or lease of real property by the public body;"

Mark's the attorney, and I'm not. But I would have preferred that the Township make a decision in public to issue a Letter of Intent and to write a $1,000 check for a real estate deal. This looks too much like a backroom deal. The Township is apparently going to proceed under new State law that came from SB 3010, a deal that flew under the radar last year and didn't become general public knowledge until it was time to be passed. Of course, all the township officials and lawyers knew about it, but they didn't tell the voters in their townships.

Jane Collins, a township resident and a lawyer, continues to do an excellent job of inspecting the monthly financial statements and asking questions about expenditures. This month she asked why the trustees are being paid $301.45 each out of the Permanent Hard Road Fund. Supervisor Bob Pearce said they are paid out of the Township General Fund; however, the January township financials clearly indicated from which fund they were actually paid. Records will be checked and corrected. The $301.45 is the monthly payment to each of the four elected Trustees for their services. What are their services for $3,600/year?

I suggested that the Township probably intends to obey the Illinois Open Meetings Act. And I believe it does. But then, why doesn't it? Staff have been trained, probably electronically, on the Act, and almost every month the Township Attorney is present.

The December Minutes were so brief that it was impossible to really understand what happened. Online information from the Attorney General's Office of Public Access Counselor states that "The minutes must include ... a summary of the discussion of all matters proposed, deliberated, or decided..."

I didn't ask who wrote the December Minutes, but they appeared to have been written by someone who doesn't normally write the Minutes.

Jane asked for FOIA information to be included monthly with the Supervisor's report, and Bob offered to distribute copies of FOIA requests received during the month to the Trustees. Trustee Joe Evanoff said it would be a waste of paper to provide copies of FOIA requests to the Trustees. Such a statement should have provoked an outcry of protest, but we citizens there last night were a polite group. (Dorr Township residents ought to be looking up the date of the next election of trustees by now...)

At least one Trustee was unfamiliar with Monday's Northwest Herald article on FOIA and Dorr Township. I brought up the online comments posted by "dpierc", suggesting that they appear to me to be posted by either an employee of the Township or someone known to employees of the Township. I asked the Township to attempt to identify that writer, because his comments reflect poorly on the Township. Bob Pearce said there is no employee by that name, but I suggested that "dpierc" is probably known to someone in the room and could possibly even have been in the room last night.

I also asked for the Minutes to be amended to reflect the decisions previously made, such as the amount of tax levy increase approved and the dates of the holidays approved for Township employees. I think it was within the last year that the Northwest Herald carried a story about the number of holidays, and Dorr Township led the entire county. As I recall, Township employees get 14 paid holidays each year.

The Trustees approved the Minutes "as amended". Did they mean to approve the December Minutes with the amendments that I suggested, without discussion by them? Why wouldn't they direct the Clerk to amend the Minutes, and then bring back the amended December Minutes for approval at the next meeting? Did they intend to approve the amended Minutes without ever reading the changes?

And again (for the third time, I think) I requested the the elected Town Clerk give a report at the monthly meeting. Why doesn't the Clerk report? All the Supervisor has to do is list "Clerk" under "Reports".

Assessor Kelli Myers said there were approximately 558 appeals to property taxes, resulting in a loss of approximately $5,793,000 of Assessed Valuation. Further losses are expected when the results of the "non-hearing" hearings are announced, and the Township expects approximately 2% loss in Assessed Valuation due to appeals.

The next Dorr Township meeting will be February 8, 2011, 7:30PM.