Did members of the Illinois Health Facilities and Services Review Board (HFSRB) violate the Illinois Open Meetngs Act in its Joliet meeting yesterday?
The HFSRB met to ponder the weighty applications of Mercy and Centegra for new hospitals in McHenry County. It did not approve either.
The evidence of the OMA violation is right on the front page of the Northwest Herald. The photo also appears in the online edition.
Board members Frank Urso and Robert Hilgenbrink are shown in the photo, and it certainly appears to me that one is speaking to the other and that their conversation probably could not be heard by the audience, or even by the other Board members.
In meetings of public bodies, conversations like this should not occur. If a member has something to say, he says it into his microphone or loudly enough that the other members and the audience can hear and understand him. In similar fashion, public body members should not telephone, text-message, e-mail, IM or Tweet other members.
Open Meetings Act training is probably needed immediately for the full HFSRB. If I recall correctly, Gov. Quinn recently appointed quite a few new members to the Board, so that the Board would be fully staffed before yesterday's meeting.
I wonder whether attorneys from Centegra or Mercy will ask the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor for a review of these apparent private comments. Probably not; that might guarantee a second rejection. But will an audience member ask for such a review? Or will the press?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I've been informed that Frank Urso is not a board member; he is an attorney (to the Board?).
I stand by my comment that all of the Board's business must be conducted in public and audible to the public. No side conversations. No legal advice to one Board member that is not given to all.
Not only wrong about that, but perhaps you can review the law and pay attention to the part that defines just WHAT violates the Open Meetings Act. Unless there have been some dramatic changes that only Gus knows about, it still takes a MAJORITY of QUORUM of a board meeting and discussing official business WITHOUT providing lawful notice to constitute a violation. In this case - even if the two gents you see speaking WERE board members and WERE discussing official business, there's NOTHING wrong. First, I'll assume (like you always do - but I'll assume the glass is half full) that the meeting they were present for was publicized. The HFSRB is a nine member board so a quorum would be what? 5 members? A majority of a quorum would be 3 members and old Gus spies two members talking to each other so they must be violating the law. Unfortunately, one of the two is NOT a member, the conversation is taking place at a legally convened open meeting, and the only problem is that Gus (who wasn't there) THINKS that maybe he couldn't hear them if he was there and that's somehow wrong.
LOL! Keep writing to the PAC at the AG's Office, Gus. They have branded you a fool too.
Hallie, did you read somewhere that I thought the meeting of the hospital board had not been duly convened? If I wrote that, please tell me where. (I did NOT question that the meeting was properly noticed and that, with nine members of a nine-member board, that they could conduct business.)
I did make an assumption that the two men were speaking during the meeting. Perhaps I was wrong about that.
Many OMA violations can occur during a properly-convened open meeting of a public body.
Post a Comment