Should Woodstock police officers worry?

Being a police officer is sometimes a hazardous, dangerous job. You never know what is going to happen when you respond to a domestic disturbance. You never know what is going to happen when you pull a car over for a traffic violation, even one so minor as a taillight out.

As an officer, you always have to be on your toes.

But should you have to worry about how your own department is going to screw you over, if you get injured while on-duty?

Every member of the department must be aware of the ordeal that former Woodstock Police Department Sgt. Steven Gorski is facing. Every member must be worrying, at least to some degree, that, if he (or she) gets injured on duty, just how hard is he going to have to fight for the benefits to which he is lawfully entitled?

The following information comes from public court records on file at the McHenry County Circuit Court. Anyone can read them. Today I read them. Every police officer with the Woodstock Police Department should go to the courthouse (better go off-duty and out of uniform, if you know what I mean) and look up Case No. 11MR000372.

Go to Room 353. The public viewing computers are there. The clerks will assist you in using the correct program so that you can find and read the Complaint that was filed on November 22, 2011.

Why has former Sgt. Gorski filed this legal action? Because the Woodstock Police Pension Fund made a huge error in its decision. Although Sgt. Gorski was on-duty on September 12, 2005, in uniform, in a squad car, and had responded to the scene of a fatal automobile accident, the Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund decided to award him benefits for an off-duty claim.

So, officers of the Woodstock P.D., is this what you have to look forward to? If you get hurt on duty and would be entitled to 65% of your pay and not have to pay Federal or Illinois income taxes on it, do you have to worry about be awarded just 50% of your pay and then having to pay taxes on that?

Three police offices sit on the Board, plus two civilians appointed by the City of Woodstock. Police Chief Robert Lowen was sitting in the hearing, when the Board announced its unanimous decision.

What's this whole mess really costing the Pension Fund? Recently, Mark Gummerson's law firm joined the action, representing the Pension Fund, the Board of Trustees, the iindividual members of the Board, and the police chief. What's that going to cost the Pension Fund?

And the Crystal Lake law firm of Campion, Curran, Dunlop, Lamb and Cunabaugh, P.C. has lined up with Attorney Tom Duda on Gorski's team.

Since Gorski has asked for attorneys' fees to be paid, and for sure the Pension Fund will pay the fees charged by Gummerson, Rausch et al., the legal fees will probably come close to equaling the final award to Gorski.

Is the City of Woodstock a party to this legal action? It's not named as a Defendant in the Complaint that was filed November 22, but online Court records for the case do list "City of Woodstock" as a Defendant.

The Complaint for Administrative Review lists the bases for the complaint, including factual errors by the Board of the Pension Fund and wrong legal standard of causation.

Gorski was injured on September 12, 2005, and he applied for disability on September 28, 2007. That's more than four years ago. Does anyone else think that's too long to wait?

BOFPC votes to terminate Gorski

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners met at 5:00PM in City Hall to conduct a "Aggravation and Mitigation" hearing as the final part of the lengthy hearing into Chief Lowen's efforts to fire Sgt. Steve Gorski.

Gorski's attorney, Tom Loizzo, questioned Chief Lowen about performance evaluations, commendations and reprimands. The chief seemed unfamiliar with Gorski's complete personnel file, much of it compiled before he came to Woodstock. There were only two reprimands in the file, in May 1999. One of them was for not meeting his monthly ticket quota.

All of Gorski's performance evaluations were above standard, including two that were 4.277 and 4.33 on a 5.0 scale. But all the good stuff was before the period when the Chief asserted that Gorski's problems began.

Loizzo also asked Chief Lowen what proof he had that Steve had taken any drugs not prescribed by a licensed physician. The chief's answer was "None."

After hearing from both sides, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss what they'd heard and, when they came back into Open Session at 6:08PM, the Board's attorney proposed a Motion to terminate Steve, which was made and seconded. The three commissioners each voted "Yes", and that was that.

The Board's attorney announced that the Findings & Decision of the Board would be written in a few weeks.

My opinion? There is plenty of room for a successful appeal in this case. The Board decided in Gorski's favor in February 2008. Nothing has changed since then, except the Chief was able to get the Board to accept an amended complaint that included Judge McIntyre's ruling, and then the Chief, through his attorney, Dave McArdle, was able to further able to get the Board to accept the rules and regulations of the Woodstock Police Department, which should have been introduced during the original hearing.

I don't understand why Judge McIntyre's Decision was important to the Board. It was the Board that heard all the original testimony - first-hand. All Judge McIntyre did was read about it. Her Decision went far beyond the scope of the question asked of her in the chief's appeal.

I'm sure there will be more to come in this case.

BOFPC rules against Gorski

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) met for three hours late this afternoon, before deciding, and then voting, to find Sgt. Steve Gorski “guilty” of misconduct in the Amended Complaint of Police Chief Bob Lowen against him.

The BOFPC hearing started shortly after 5:00PM, as soon as the court reporter arrived from Wheaton (I wonder if she got paid time and mileage for the commute). Present were the three Commissioners, the attorney for the Commission (from Naperville), two attorneys from the Office of the City Attorney, Police Chief Lowen, HR Director Janelle Crowley, the recording secretary for the Commission, Sgt. Gorski, Sgt. Gorski’s attorney Tom Loizzo, Dr. Rich Gorski and I.

Tom Loizzo made a motion to adjourn or continue, based on the pending action by the Woodstock Police Pension Board. Loizzo and McArdle argued both sides of the Motion. The BOFPC then entered Executive Session and, when it returned to Open Session, voted to deny the Motion by Loizzo.

McArdle moved to add the Police Department Rules & Regulations to the Complaint. Loizzo objected, because the Chief had rested his case more than a year ago. The BOFPC accepted the Rules & Regulations.

I loved Tom Loizzo’s comment during his objection to the adding of the P.D.’s Rules & Regs at this late date. He said he was against it, because it allowed (the Chief) a “3rd bite of the apple.” Certainly, the Chief got a huge second bite, when the BOFPC agreed on June 30 to allow him to amend his Complaint against Sgt. Gorski, and the BOFPC gave him the third bite tonight.

I was concerned during tonight’s meeting with what seemed to me to be a large degree of disrespect and disinterest on the part of the Board. Commissioner Larry Howell showed up in a green polo shirt and shorts and looked like he was either coming from a picnic or going to one. Commissioner Schroeder was dressed in old pants and a collarless t-shirt. I realize it’s summertime in Woodstock, but this Commission is an official public body of the City of Woodstock and it is dealing with a lengthy hearing and a very important decision to a 20-year employee. This was a business meeting, not a gathering to plan an employee picnic. Commissioner Howell’s body language during large portions of the Open Session indicated to me a high degree of disinterest and that he probably wished he was somewhere else.

The attorney for the BOFPC made a huge error early in the hearing by referring to Sgt. Gorski as “Mr. Gorski”. He must have realized the error, because he didn’t repeat it.

After the initial fancy footwork of the lawyers was out of the way, the real meat of the hearing was about to begin, and Loizzo moved to close the meeting to the public. McArdle objected, saying that everything was public record already. The BOFPC agreed to close the meeting, and Dr. Gorski and I stepped out.

After several breaks the Board returned to Open Session, and Attorney Broihier announced that the Board had reached a decision. Then he added that the Board would vote on a motion, and he proposed that the Motion be to find Sgt. Gorski guilty of misconduct.

Now here’s the rub! Was there another violation of the Open Meetings Act by this Board? How could Mr. Broihier announce that the Board had reached a decision, if they hadn’t voted yet? Maybe I’m too picky about words, but lawyers know what words are for and what they mean. So, when he said they had reached a decision, then they must have done so in Executive Session, and the Open Meetings Act clearly does not allow that.

The BOFPC is to issue a written Finding and Decision, as it originally did back on February 14, 2008. This will be a public record. Next will be a hearing of evidence of aggravation and mitigation, and the BOFPC will meet again on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 5:00PM in the City Council chambers.

This is, of course, just before the City Council meeting where it is highly likely that the “Grace Hall matter” will be heard. There is every possibility of a standing room only crowd. Surely, WCLS will ask all its employees to be there, and maybe 100-200 interested townspeople who want Grace Hall to remain standing will be there, too.

Note to Chief Webster: better check the Occupancy of the City Council chambers. The early birds will get the seats.

Woodstock BOFPC - this Thursday

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners will meet this Thursday, June 11, at 5:00PM to consider and make a decision in the matter of Sgt. Steve Gorski, a 20-year employee of the Woodstock Police Department.

The police chief, through the office of the City Attorney, has submitted a Motion to Amend his Complaint against Sgt. Gorski. This seems, to me, to be quite an usual step. The police chief submitted everything he had to the Board, and on February 14, 2008, which is 15 months ago, the Board decided that the chief had not made his case. The chief didn't agree with the decision and appealed to McHenry County Circuit Court.

When this is all said and done, it will be very interesting to learn just how many of the taxpayers' dollars have been expended in the chief's efforts to terminate Sgt. Gorski.

And Sgt. Gorski he is, although the City has taken to referring to him as Steven Gorski (not even Mr.). Courtesy and respect should be accorded to this 20-year officer.

On June 11, the Board will consider the Motion by Attorney David McArdle and the Response by Sgt. Gorski's attorney, Tom Loizzo. The Board is expected to announce its decision whether to accept the Amended Motion (or not). The attorneys for both sides are not required to be at Thursday's meeting.

The Board will then meet on June 30 to continue the hearing, because Judge McIntyre sent the matter back to the Board.

All interested members of the public can attend Thursday's meeting and all future meetings of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. Come and see how this important Board, made up of three residents of Woodstock, conducts its business on behalf of the City.

More on Gorski BOFPC Hearing

In yesterday's BOFPC hearing, the Board continued its hearing to dates mentioned in yesterday's article on this website. The Amended Complaint would have been filed with the BOFPC, where it ought to be a confidential document.

This morning's Northwest Herald states, "City attorney David McArdle has asked to have the complaint against Gorski amended to better reflect the evidence that already had been presented."

First of all, why is McArdle saying anything about this Amended Complaint?

Secondly, the Board probably could have made a decision yesterday in about five seconds. No. As in, NO. Better yet, NO!!!

You don't get to hear the evidence that is presented and then get to amend your complaint, unless you are going to reduce the charges (or drop them). Is that what is going to happen?

The Board has already decided that the case presented by the police chief and his witnesses got a failing grade. The charges didn't stick. Why should there be any different decision?

As I have written before, the 3-man Board heard all the testimony - in person. When you hear testimony in person, you not only hear the words - you get to judge the manner in which the testimony is presented. Often, non-verbal expression is equally or more important than verbal expression.

Were the months of testimony videotaped? I don't think so.

BOFPC meets, continues to 6/11, 6/30

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) met today at 5:00PM in the City Council chambers at City Hall. The attorney from Naperville for the 3-man Board sat with the commissioners in the big chairs; attorneys for Sgt. Steve Gorski and for the Police Department were present. Two attorneys were there for Sgt. Gorski, and two attorneys from the office of the City Attorney were present. A court reporter was present to record the meeting.

The Board very briefly restated the case and Judge McIntyre's decision to remand the case to the Board.

The Board has received a Motion to Amend the Complaint from the police department and a letter from Tom Loizzo, attorney for Sgt. Gorski. Attorney Loizzo requested that today's hearing be continued, in order to allow him time to review the Motion to Amend. Attorney McArdle, for the City and the police department, asked that the matter continue today, indicating that the Motion was presented on April 28 and that he felt that Attorney Loizzo had had sufficient time to study it and respond to it.

The Board went into Executive Session to consider the request to continue. When they returned to open session, the attorney for the Board, who did most of the talking for the Board today, stated that the decision of the Board was to continue the matter.

Mr. McArdle is to have time to correct the Amended Complaint and to present it by May 20. Mr. Loizzo then has 14 days (to June 3) to file a written response. Mr. McArdle then has 7 days (to June 10) to file a written reply to the response.

The Board will meet on June 11 to consider and vote on the Motion by the police department to amend its complaint. At that meeting attorneys will not be required to be present. In other words, only the decision of the Board on the Amended Complaint will be made and announced on June 11.

Then the Board will meet on June 30, 5:00PM at City Hall to continue the hearing; i.e., to proceed with the order of Judge McIntyre, when she sent the case back to the Board on March 24.

Isn't this amazing? The police chief filed charges against Sgt. Gorski in 2007. On February 14, 2008, the Board issued its Findings and Decision (public record now) that the chief had not made his case, and the Board directed the City to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back wages. That was 15 months ago, and not a dime has been paid.

On March 24, 2009, Judge McIntyre sent the case back to the Board, and now more than three more months will pass from that date until the next hearing.

Only three things in this world are certain:
1. Death
2. Taxes
3. Lawyers' fees

Orange Alert: City Board MIA

Where, oh where, is the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners???

A Special Meeting was scheduled for Monday, April 6, and an Agenda was published. And then, on Friday, April 3, the meeting was canceled! Have you guys been taking lessons from the McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Commission?

The Board is an appointed Board of the CITY of Woodstock. One of its purposes is to see that sworn members of the Woodstock Police Department are treated fairly.

Who really controls this Board and gives it its marching orders?

Two matters are in need of urgent attention.

First - Judge McIntyre ruled, finally, on Chief Lowen's appeal of the February 14, 2008, Findings & Decision by the Board. In February 2008 the Board decided that Chief Lowen had not made his case against Sgt. Gorski and directed the City to pay Gorski all his back wages.

When the chief appealed that decision, he failed to ask the Court to stay payment of back wages. Therefore, the City should have paid Gorski. Who in City Government is responsible for the City's failure to do so? The HR Director? The City Manager? The Mayor? The City Council? They all know that the City has not paid Sgt. Gorski.

Gorski is still a sworn member of the Police Department. Yet it is my understanding that the City canceled his health and life insurance in October. Why?

The Board should meet immediately to discuss Judge McIntyre's March 24, 2009, Decision and determine its next step. It's a simple one. It heard all the chief's evidence and made its decision. Apparently, it shouldn't have made a "directed verdict." OK, so fix that step. Hear from Gorski. You've already determined that the chief didn't make his case. You think Gorski is going to help the chief make his case?

What are you waiting for?

Second - you are treating Officer O'Doherty shamefully. You failed to notify him of the March 2 and March 12 meetings. You indicated you "might" give him a hearing on March 23; you didn't. A Special Meeting was scheduled for April 6; now you have canceled it.

If the chief wanted action against O'Doherty on March 2, O'Doherty should have known about the meeting. Further, your action on that date was illegal, because you didn't vote in public. Therefore, your action has no legal standing. This is not my opinion. This is an opinion I got from the office of the Illinois Attorney General.

On March 12, you voted to suspend him without pay. However, since your initial suspension was invalid (voted on in private), it was wrong for you to then suspend him without pay, because you had not first imposed the lesser discipline/punishment. In any event, you should have held a hearing before you imposed any discipline.

Now you are stalling further on giving him a hearing. Where are we? World War II Germany? Guilty and sentenced, without a trial?

Gentlemen, you are a Board of the City of Woodstock and you are to be fair and impartial. You are not appointed - as is the McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Commission by - by whom else? - the sheriff. Your responsibility is to the People of Woodstock, and we expect you to have strong backbones. At times you may have to decide against the police chief, the city manager, the mayor, the city council. At those times we expect you to do so.

You showed that strong backbone in February 2008, after you had heard five months of testimony and then decided that "...the Charges against the Respondent (Gorski) are not sustained..."

In a different article a law enforcement officer wrote "MCSD like to exhaust people's money so they can't continue to fight." This looks true for Woodstock, too.

So how about taking care of business???

NWH Editorial Supports Judge McIntyre

This morning's editorial in the Northwest Herald supports Judge McIntyre's decision Tuesday in the case of Lowen v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

Here's what I wonder.

Judge McIntyre read about the case. The Board heard testimony - directly. They listened to Chief Lowen and they listened to his witnesses.

Then the three-man Board voted that the chief had not made his case.

I recall an example given to me years ago that clarified the difference between reading about something, compared with actually doing that thing (in other words, being there). I'm flipping a coin right now to decide whether to relate that exact comparison.

(flip).

Oh, sorry. Tails. I'll leave the comparison to your imagination.

Judge McIntyre Rules!

At 9:06AM this morning Judge Maureen McIntyre called the case of Lowen v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

She looked around the courtroom for lawyers to approach the bench. Seeing none, she handed some papers to her clerk.

I thought, “That’s it? Where are the lawyers?”

Here’s a case that was filed a year ago over a trivial, but legal, issue. And no lawyers are here?

After a few minutes I asked the bailiff if I could read the Decision. While he was finishing other business, I spotted a familiar face and, a few minutes later, left the courtroom and watched a hallway conversation between Sgt. Steve Gorski, his father and one of his attorneys.

What did Judge McIntyre decide in this case that was filed a year ago? You may recall the issue. The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners told Chief Lowen that he had not made his case. Sgt. Gorski’s lawyer asked for a directed verdict in Gorski’s favor. And that’s what the Board decided.

Apparently, the City’s attorney did not object at the time. But they figured out later that they might make a case for the Board’s having made its decision in, in their opinion, an incorrect manner. And so they filed for an Administrative Review.

OK, so the judge sided with them. What does this mean?

The case goes back to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. The Board has already heard the chief’s case. The chief rested his case a year ago. He should not have any opportunity to present more testimony or information. He’s all done.

Where will the Board pick up? Right before its decision to issue a directed verdict? What will it do? The Board could call Sgt. Steve Gorski, and then he has choices. He could say he has nothing to say. The Board has heard the chief’s case. It should decide exactly as it did before. And the Board could rule that the City is to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay. It’s not just one year’s back pay; now it is TWO years’ back pay.

Or Sgt. Gorski could testify. He could provide his name and rank and then say he has nothing further to offer. And the Board will make the same decision.

Or he could re-state the facts of the case and how he was placed in a Catch 22 situation when he was required to sign a statement presented by the chief that said he could not take certain medications but he COULD take any drugs prescribed by his doctors! Now, just how do you do that? And if you do take drugs prescribed by your doctors but they happen to be on the chief’s Don’t Take list, you’re in deep manure. And that's just where he found himself.

How quickly will the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners meet? They must give 48 hours’ notice, so they could meet on Friday at 5:00PM and finish off this matter.

By the way, the Board should order the Police Department and the City of Woodstock to reinstate Gorski’s health insurance which, I understand, the City canceled in October!

What a great way to treat a 19-year employee who has suffered two on-the-job injuries!!!

BOFPC to meet Monday, March 2

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners will meet on Monday, March 2, 2009, at 5:00PM at the Woodstock Police Department.

A special meeting has been called and placed on the City Calendar on the City's homepage at www.woodstockil.gov, although the Board is incorrectly named there as the "Board of Police and Fire Commission" (sic).

Several errors appear in the announcement. First, it's not a Regular Meeting, as shown on the Agenda for this meeting. This Board is not scheduled to hold any regular meetings in 2009, or they would appear on the required master schedule of meetings of Boards and Commissions, as required by the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

This March 2 meeting is a Special Meeting. It appears that it is called to address a personnel issue, as an Executive Session is scheduled under New Business. Okay, so who is in the crosshairs now?

It can't be Sgt. Gorski, because Judge McIntyre is not scheduled to rule in the chief's court case against the BOFPC until March 24, 2009. The BOFPC will have to meet shortly after she issues her Decision, which is now three months over-due. The City owes Sgt. Gorski for all his back pay to February 14, 2008 and also for his pay from February 14, 2008 to the current date.

Notice of Special Meetings is to be given to the media. Hopefully, Notice has been given to the Northwest Herald, the Daily Herald, The Woodstock Independent, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, radio stations and other media that requested such Notices.

It's my belief that the meetings of this Board should be held at City Hall, not in the personal conference room of the police chief at police headquarters. This is not an "open" meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Act. A person wanting to attend this meeting cannot just walk into the meeting room, as he can at City Hall. He must be admitted into the secure area of the police department AND escorted to the police chief's office.

I also believe that the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk should be the recording secretary of the Board, as she is for other Boards and Commissions. Currently, the administrative assistant for the police chief is the recording secretary. She does a good job but, by nature of her reporting position to the police chief, she cannot be independent.

In the 1 1/2 years there were Minutes of many Special Meetings that were not prepared, until I squawked at a City Council meeting.

As of today the most recent set of Minutes for the BOFPC is for July 14, 2008, and there is no written record of an important document dated February 14, 2008 - the Decision and Findings of the BOFPC in the Sgt. Gorski matter. There is an Agenda posted online for a September 8, 2008 Meeting, and I recall that meeting was held. It seems to me that Minutes previously were posted online for that meeting. Where are they now?

If you, as a resident of Woodstock, want to know what the 3-man Board of Fire and Police Commissioners is doing, show up at police headquarters by 5:00PM on Monday. You'll be asked to step out of the meeting during the Executive Session, and then you'll be allowed back in for them to state publicly what decision was made during the closed Executive Session.

I would be there, but I'm in South Carolina. Let me know, so that I can publish the details. Otherwise, I'll get them upon my return.

Court Date Passes Too Quietly

Today was to be the day that Judge Maureen McIntyre issued her Decision in the case of Lowen v. (Woodstock) Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. By now you know what this case is all about. If you don't and if you wonder, search on this site for "Gorski".

This case has muddled along for months - for too many months. Filed back on March 7, 2008, it should have been a slam-dunk. In July a Conference Scheduling court date resulted in a Continuance to August 15. On August 15 the case was set for a Hearing on October 15.

Now, remember, in all this time Sgt. Gorski is not being paid, in spite of the order by the 3-man Board of Fire and Police Commissioners on February 14, 2008, to the Chief and to the City to reimburse Sgt. Gorski for past wages.

On October 15 Judge McIntyre took the case under advisement. A written decision was expected on December 15.

December 15 came and went. Then she broke her arm and the January 14 Decision date was continued to today, February 17.

Yesterday I was told that today's court date was canceled. Now, keep in mind that Sgt. Gorski doesn't talk to me, so I didn't hear it from him. I immediately wondered how a court date could get canceled. Last Friday I had called the courthouse, knowing that Monday was a holiday. The case was still on.

This morning the Case was listed on the hallway monitors. In the courtroom the case was printed on the court call for today. So it wasn't "canceled."

When the case was called at 9:36AM, no attorney approached Judge McIntyre. I was sitting right in the front row and could not hear Judge McIntyre's words. At 9:48AM I asked the bailiff what was going on with the case, and he told me that the judge was going to continue the case, but "they" haven't made out the Order yet.

After 10:00AM the judge was winding up business and asked me why I was there. I informed her that I was there for her Decision in Lowen v. Board. She said the case was being continued to March 24.

Now I've got to wonder - aloud - make that ALOUD - where the attorneys were for the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and why they weren't screaming bloody murder about one more delay. Of course, they don't have anything at risk. The 3-man Board risks no financial loss. They made a decision on February 14 and it will either be upheld or not.

But the person whose career, health and financial status are in turmoil has great risk. The City canceled his health insurance last fall. Nice, eh?

Here is a 19-year employee whose continued employment was supported in February 2008 and who now, a full year later, has still not received one dime from the City of Woodstock.

And where is the City in all this? It is playing out the lawyer-game in court. Drag it out as long as you can. After all, "we" have more money than you do. "We" have the City treasury at our fingertips.

It is way past time for members of the City Council to take back control of the City and strike down their senseless legal maneuvering and waste of taxpayer dollars! The City is paying for the City Attorney to represent the Police Chief in this case. The City must be paying for the Naperville law firm to represent the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, since it is a city commission. And there is an excellent chance that the city is going to end up paying Sgt. Gorski's attorney's fee.

There is a reason why lawyers' words in court are called "arguments." They are supposed to argue their case on behalf of their clients. In this case where are the arguments?

What possible reason could there be for Sgt. Gorski's attorney not to appear before Judge McIntyre at 9:36AM and (politely and respectfully) demand her decision? This Decision was supposed to be made on December 15. Now, we all know that nobody "demands" anything of a judge. In the courtroom the judge is King, which is how it should be. But a good lawyer can present such strong and compelling reasoning that the judge will agree.

Where were the good lawyers today?

BOFPC/Sgt. Gorski Decision - Feb. 17

It now looks like it will be one year and three days after the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) ruled, that Judge Maureen McIntyre will issue her Decision in this case.

All the details don't need to be re-hashed. In summary, the BOFPC ruled on February 14, 2008, that the police chief had not proven his case against Sgt. Steve Gorski and it directed the City to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay. The Findings and Decision of the BOFPC is a public record and can be viewed at City Hall, if you are interested.

If you are bashful (or prudent) and prefer not to ask the City to show you a copy, contact me and I'll be happy to share my copy with you. If I had a little more computer savvy, I'd figure out how to post it here. Basically, the report exonerates Sgt. Gorski.

The case in Circuit Court is not really against Sgt. Gorski, although he is named as a Defendant. In fact, it is curious to me why Sgt. Gorski is even named as a Defendant, because nothing in the Complaint is aimed at Gorski. Naming him as a Defendant only serves to drive up his legal expenses.

The case is Case No. 08MR60: ROBERT W. LOWEN, Chief of Police, v. BOARD OF FIRE & (sic) POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF WOODSTOCK, RONALD GIORDANO, LAWRENCE HOWELL, THOMAS SCHROEDER, and STEVEN GORSKI.

From the use of capitals in the naming of the case, the defendants are 1) the Board, 2) the three individual members of the Board, and 3) the City employee in whose favor the Board ruled. It seems to me that there are five (5) defendants in this case.

Does each Board member have his own attorney? There is a lawyer representing the BOFPC - John Broihier of Naperville. I wonder if he represents only the Board or if he also represents the three commissioners.

On the Order issued on January 13, setting February 17 for the Decision, only the City's lawyer and Sgt. Gorski's lawyer are noted on the Distribution list. I wonder why counsel for the BOFPC isn't being given Notice of the date for Decision. The Board is the real Defendant in this case.

Hopefully, Judge McIntyre will have recovered sufficiently to hold court on February 17. Last year the BOFPC met quarterly. If it follows the same schedule as in 2008, there will be a meeting in March. However, this year the BOFPC will meet only in Special Meetings on a minimum of 48 hours' notice, as no Regular Meetings appear on the 2009 Boards and Commissions Schedule of Meetings.

This means that concerned residents are going to have to lurk around the Agenda webpages of the various Commissions and Boards, in order to learn of Special Meetings. Or you can keep reading the Woodstock Advocate, because I'll keep you informed of Special Meetings, at least of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and the Liquor Commission.

City Still Refuses to Pay

On February 14 the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners ended 4 1/2 months of hearings into an attempt by the police chief to fire a 19-year sergeant. The Board issued its Findings and Decision, five pages that clear Sgt. Gorski of charges that he improperly used medications prescribed by his doctors for treatment of two on-the-job back injuries. The Board dismissed the charges and ordered the City to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back wages.

Now, eight months later, the City has not paid one penny. Not the back wages; not the wages since February 14. Instead, the City is wasting thousands of dollars in court, claiming that the Board made the wrong decision and in the wrong way.

Should the City have gotten an opinion from a different law firm before hiring the City Attorney's office to run off to the courthouse? Just how much is being spent in legal fees in this silly legal maneuvering? The City is paying the City Attorney to handle the Chief's case; the City must be paying the attorney for the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

And the City will end up paying the legal fees for Sgt. Gorski, when he ultimately is successful in getting what is due him! That's three sets of legal fees - all unnecessary!

The City has put every employee on notice. Be good. Do what you are told, even if it's not right. Or else.

Four of the City Council members need to correct the City's path and DIRECT the City Manager and Human Resources to follow the order of its 3-man Commission and pay Sgt. Gorski within seven days.

The Findings and Decision are public record. They should have been included in Minutes of the Commission's first meeting after February 14.

Why aren't they? Because the City Attorney says that they don't have to be there. He says they are public; anyone can read them at City Hall.

Of course, you have to be a mind reader to know that they are there at City Hall to be read.

Woodstock PD vs. Sgt. Gorski

Remember the saga of Sgt. Gorski, who suffered two on-the-job back injuries and whom the Chief is trying to fire? You can read the latest update on www.McHenryCountyAdvocate.com

Back in February the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners ("Board"), a three-man board of civilians that just happens to include a Woodstock resident who is Police Chief of a nearby village, determined, after four months of hearings, that Chief Lowen had not made his case to fire Sgt. Gorski successfully to the Board. The Board ordered that the Police Department and the City of Woodstock should pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay - many months' worth of back pay. That was in February.

Has he been paid? No. Make that, NO.

Not a penny in eight months. Just how long does it take for a City to carry out a directive of one of its appointed Boards?

Instead, Chief Lowen filed an action in McHenry County Circuit Court to declare that the Board had not made its decision in the right way and it did not have the legal authority to make it in the manner in which it did?

Wouldn't it be interesting to know the total of legal fees expended by the City first in trying to fire Sgt. Gorski and, secondly, with the court case it filed? Probably as much as the City will end up paying for all his back pay, interest, legal fees to collect it, etc.

Maybe the City Attorney should have just told the City, "Hey, you (we) lost. Get over it. Pay him and be done with it. If you don't like the job we are doing for you, fire us."

And what was that manner in which the Board acted? The Board heard a motion by Sgt. Gorski's attorney for a directed verdict in Sgt. Gorski's favor. This motion was made at the conclusion of 4 1/2 month of hearings and when the Police Department had finally finished offering up everything it could think of.

Granting this motion would mean that the Board did not have to hear any testimony from Sgt. Gorski. In other words, if the Board granted the motion for a "directed verdict," then it would be saying that, after hearing everything that the P.D. had to say - all its witnesses, records, charts, evidence, etc. - then the Board did not have to hear from Sgt. Gorski. In other words, no defense would be necessary.

And that's exactly what the Board did. It granted the Motion for a directed verdict and told the Chief to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay. Did the Chief "give up"? No way! By filing his case in court, he apparently has found a way to stall the payment of all the back pay.

Last Wednesday they were all in Judge McIntyre's court for yet one more court date. When the good judge was asked back in March to make an administrative review of the Board's decision-making ability, it should have taken about two weeks. Certainly, a decision could have been rendered by mid-April. Did it happen?

Last Wednesday Attorney McArdle from the office of the City Attorney (an independent law firm contracted by the City of Woodstock) dragged in his tripod and charts and launched into a presentation to the judge. What was that all about? Apparently, nine reasons were given as to why Sgt. Gorski shouldn't be a Woodstock cop any longer.

Why would the City reveal information from the confidential medical records of an employee in open court? Maybe for the same reason it did so at the first meeting of the Board, before they went into Executive Session.

Wish I had been there, but earlier I was in a different courtroom with a friend whose case was set for the same day and time. What did that judge say to her? That he was conducting a criminal court, not traffic court. So she needs to go back another time. I heard the snide remark of the prosecuting attorney, which went unchallenged by the defendant. Too bad the judge let it pass without slapping that attorney on the wrist.

Judge McIntyre is to issue her decision on December 18 in the Gorski case. This will be ten months after the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners told the City to pay up. Ten months! TEN months. I wonder what the next step of stalling will be. A further appeal?

And what will she decide? Either that the Board made its decision in the right manner or it didn't. If it did, will the City pay up promptly?

And if it didn't? The matter goes back to the Board for a new decision. That ought to take all of about three minutes, since the Police Chief completed his testimony. He shouldn't get any further chance to prove his case. And, since it hadn't been proved it up to that point, it still won't be proved.

What do you suppose is the real reason that the police department is fighting so hard to can Sgt. Gorski?

Fairness in City Operations

Should a city operate under a doctrine of fairness? Or should it operate under a doctrine of "information management" and a program of withholding of important information from its residents? Can it write (or re-write) history by choosing what information to release to its residents (citizens, voters)?

Over the past year the City of Woodstock's Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC, a volunteer board of three civilians, all Woodstock residents) held a series of Special Meetings regarding an attempt by the chief of police (Bob Lowen) to fire a sergeant (Sgt. Steven Gorski) of the police department who was a 19-year employee and who had suffered not one, but two on-the-job back injuries.

Under the Open Meetings Act these Special Meetings should have been announced to the public, including online on the City's website. And Minutes should have been created for each of these meeting.

On February 14, 2008, the Board issued a written Findings and Decision, exonerating Sgt. Gorski and directed the chief and the City to pay his all his back wages. The City has not paid Sgt. Gorski.

On March 7, 2008, the Chief (through his attorney in the office of Woodstock's City Attorney) filed a Complaint for Administrative Review in Circuit Court, claiming that the Board erred by issuing a directed decision. The first hearing was July 18 and a continuance was granted; the second hearing was yesterday, August 15, and a continuance was granted - Chief Lowen's attorney is to file a brief for records; the next hearing is scheduled for October 15 at 9:00AM in Judge McIntyre's court.

Until I addressed the City Council during the summer, no Minutes of these Special Meetings existed. I told the Council that there should be Minutes, even if all they did was report the start of the Special Meeting, the time entering and leaving Executive Session (to consider a personnel issue), and the end of the Special Meeting.

And now those Minutes exist, but an extremely important document is missing from those Minutes.

The Findings and Decision of the Board is a public document, both under the Open Meetings Act and because it was filed in court as part of the chief's Complaint.

When I asked recently for that document to be reported in Minutes of the Board, I was informed that the City Attorney's opinion is that the City need not report that document or record it in Minutes, because the Open Meetings Act does not require that.

Well, folks, I'll bet that the Open Meetings Act does not prohibit it, either. In all fairness to this employee (and to any City employee), the decision of the Board in favor of the employee should be reported and be easily found by anyone looking for it.

As the case is now, one would have to know about the document, in order to know to ask for it. A routine reading of Minutes does not now reveal it. However, now that you know about it, you can go to City Hall and read it. This document is available for public inspection. If you are told to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, contact me and I'll direct you to the form on the City's website (if it is still there).

The City of Woodstock should quickly remedy this error. The City Attorney is once again incomplete (would some say "wrong") in its opinion, and the City should place this document in the public Minutes of the BOFPC without further delay.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

Courtroom 201 - No surprises

About 20 minutes into this morning's call the case of Lowen vs. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) (and Sgt. Gorski) was called by Judge Maureen McIntyre. Called pretty loudly, too. And then the volume dropped.

It was possible to hear portions of the statements by Dane Loizzo, attorney for Sgt. Gorski, and Elizabeth Wakeman from Dave McArdle's office (office of the City Attorney), representing Chief Lowen and the City of Woodstock.

On behalf of Chief Lowen Ms. Wakeman asked the judge for more time. Seems that Mr. McArdle wants to review some records. Well, what in the world has been going on since February 14th? Only just now did he decide he needs to review more records?

Sgt. Gorski's attorney argued against these further delays and informed Judge McIntyre that Sgt. Gorski hasn't been paid since October 2007. The judge gave Chief Lowen's attorney 45 days to file a brief and set the next court date for mid-September.

What a joke! Any "records" don't have a thing to do with this Administrative Law Hearing. All Judge McIntyre has to decide is whether the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners erred in granting a directed verdict in Sgt. Gorski's favor in February.

And what if they did? As I have written previously (find below by searching for "Gorski"), all that will happen is that the BOFPC will re-convene. The Chief has completed his testimony; he won't get to add anything new or make further statements. The BOFPC will call Sgt. Gorski, ask him to state his name and then ponder the weighty decision facing them - - just how long should they look serious before re-stating the same decision that they announced in February?

How much money is the City of Woodstock wasting on this (what could I call it? starts with st----) legal action?

And how much financial pain is it heaping on a 19-year employee?

Keep in mind that on February 14 the BOFPC directed Chief Lowen and the City of Woodstock to pay all Sgt. Gorski's back pay to him.

WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE THIS?

AND WHEN WILL THEY PAY HIM?

2008 © GUS PHILPOTT

City vs. BOFPC (and Gorski) - Round 2

Tomorrow morning, Friday, August 15, the City of Woodstock heads back into court against its own Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. Judge Maureen McIntyre should be hearing from the attorneys what they talked about in the past 30 days, when the City's attorney asked for 30 days to "discuss" matters with the attorney for Sgt. Steve Gorski.

Sgt. Gorski is the 19-year employee of the Woodstock Police Department that the chief is trying to fire. Sgt. Gorski is the same 19-year employee that the three-man Board of Fire and Police Commissioners decided on February 14 was not guilty of any major infraction. The Board told the chief and the City to pay him his back wages, which were due since August 2007.

Has the City of Woodstock paid him, as directed by its own civilian Board? NO.

Instead, the police chief filed in Circuit Court claiming that the City's own Board did not make the right decision and did not make it in the right way.

How much is it costing Woodstock for its legal advice in this matter? $250/hour? $300/hour? Or is there a flat rate of $5,-10,000 or more?

Even though the case is against the Board, the Board was not represented at the last court appearance. WHY NOT? Why would the primary defendants not even show up for court? Could it be because this court case is not really against the Board, but against Gorski?

The chief named Sgt. Gorski in his Complaint about the Board's decision-making abilities, forcing Sgt. Gorski to hire legal defense and appear in court. After court, I heard Sgt. Gorski's attorney, Tom Loizzo, tell the woman lawyer from the City Attorney's office to tell Rich Flood to call him. Has Rich Flood called Tom Loizzo? If so, when? Will he call today, the day before the City is expected back in court?

What will happen tomorrow morning?

Will Sgt. Gorski's attorney file a Motion to have Sgt. Gorski dismissed from the City's case against the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners? After all, why was he included in the first place. It was the decision of the Board that the chief didn't like!

Will his attorney file a Motion that Gorski should be paid his back wages?

Or should he file a wage lawsuit against the City and request punitive damages; say, triple the amount of unpaid wages?

Will the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners be represented by legal counsel tomorrow morning?

Will the two sides deal tomorrow with the Scheduling Conference that was the purpose of last month's court date? Why didn't they deal with that then?

Why didn't the Judge put a stop to this nonsense and delay by insisting on scheduling and not allow a 30-day foot-dragging delay? Maybe because she wasn't asked to?

In the chief's Complaint, which was filed in March 2008, he did not ask the Court if the City could withhold paying Sgt. Gorski his back wages. Therefore, by what authority did the City fail to honor the decision and direction of its own Board and decide not to pay Sgt. Gorski his back wages?

What Woodstock needs is more people paying attention to what is going on. If our City Council and Mayor knew that the residents (the Voters) were actually minding the store and that they would be accountable for their actions (and inactions), both during their terms and at the voting booth at the next election, then they would be addressing issues like this and not letting them fester.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

Open Letter to Mayor and Woodstock City Council

An open letter to Mayor Sager and City Council Members Dillon, Turner, Webster, Thompson, Larson and Ahrens:

On February 14, 2008, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners issued its Findings and Decision in the Sgt. Gorski matter. It seems to me that this important document should have been ratified at the March Regular Meeting of the BOFPC. At the least, that document should have been referred to in Minutes. Without official documentation, it has become invisible.

As you must know, Sgt. Gorski was exonerated by the Board. Chief Lowen's charges were not sustained. The charge against Sgt. Gorski was dismissed by the Board. The Board ordered that the City pay Sgt. Gorski all unpaid back wages.

Apparently, the City has not done this.

What the City should do is pay Sgt. Gorski all his back wages and return him to duty status. This was the Board's finding. According to the BOFPC, Sgt. Gorski remains an employee of the Woodstock Police Department and the City.

The Board issued its Findings and Decision five (5!) months ago. The City flinched in court on last Friday morning by ducking the conference scheduling for which the court date existed. I fully expect the City, through its City Attorney, to claim on August 15 that it has been unable to resolve the matter and then to proceed with conference scheduling.

When Chief Lowen's case was called, it was not even important enough for him to be there; at least, I didn't see him. I understand that he was not required to be there but, still, the City is spending a lot of money and he should have been there. Rich Flood was not even there but instead sent an employee attorney from his office. An employee of the City Attorney's office would have no authority, other than to stall the case for another month. If they were serious about settling the case, the settlement would have been ready to be presented last Friday.

In the meantime the City's legal fees continue to grow. Is there some reason that the City does not require expediency in resolving legal matters, in order to keep legal fees and costs as low as possible?

More importantly, when the case was called, the BOFPC was not represented before Judge McIntyre. This was a huge error, unless they have some reason to believe that Chief Lowen's case is not really against them. The Commissioners are officials of the City of Woodstock; yet they were not there and their legal counsel, if they have counsel, did not approach the bench when the case was called.

It's an extremely shabby way to treat a 19-year employee.

The City has exposed itself to financial peril by not honoring the decision of the three-man civilian Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. Their 3-0 decision in February cannot be over-emphasized. If you haven't read the Findings and Decision, please do. You'll get the full impact of the decision by reading it carefully.

If the Chief eventually wins his case before Judge McIntyre, all that will happen is that the case will go back to the BOFPC, which has no reason to change its Findings and Decision. To complete any hearing that they might be ordered to reconvene, all they will do is call Sgt. Gorski, listen to his name, rank and badge number, and make the same decision - that Chief Lowen has not proven his case. Why would they change that decision?

I would like to believe that you are men and women of honor and integrity. You can demonstrate this by directing Mr. Clifton to pay Sgt. Gorski all back wages immediately and return him to duty without further delay.

Mr. Clifton, will you please forward this to Commissioners Giordano and Schroeder, whose email addresses I do not have. Thank you.

Gus Philpott

cc: Commissioner Howell
City Manager Tim Clifton

Lowen v. Gorski - See Ya Next Month

The lawyering in court began this morning, when Woodstock Police Chief Robert Lowen's attorney met with Sgt. Steven Gorski's attorney before Judge Maureen McIntyre in the Circuit Court of the 22nd Judicial District at the McHenry County Government Center.

Who are the defendants? The three Woodstock residents who are commissioners of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) and the sergeant.

What happened in court? The next court date was set for August 15, 2008 at 9:00AM, and Sgt. Gorski's attorney, Tom Loizzo, is to speak with Rich Flood, City Attorney for Woodstock.

This was worth a four-month wait???

The Woodstock City Attorney, Rich Flood, should have been in court, not one of the hired guns who could not commit to anything except the next court date. No wonder our court system is clogged to the breaking point.

If I had been Judge McIntyre, I would have sent Attorneys Flood and Loizzo into a conference room and told them to stay there until they settle. Of course, she couldn't do that because Rich Flood wasn't there. I could be wrong, but I didn't even see an attorney for the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners at the bench after Judge McIntyre called the case.

Last February the Board didn't buy the Chief's charges against Sgt. Gorski. Without even hearing from Sgt. Gorski, the Board ruled 3-0 in favor of Sgt. Gorski and ordered that the charges by Chief Lowen be dismissed. The Board also ordered that Sgt. Gorski was to receive his back pay.

That was February 14, 2008.

That was five months ago.

Has the City paid Gorski his back pay? No!

Instead Chief Lowen filed a case in Circuit Court in March, requesting an Administrative Law Hearing.

All that happened today was a "scheduling hearing." The lawyers stood before Judge McIntyre and were to lay a schedule by which the court case started by Chief Lowen will proceed. Instead, they will come back on August 15.

Will the City reinstate Sgt. Gorski, deliver all his back pay (as ordered on February 14 with statutory interest)? Or will they plead for more time?

This is likely to mean months more of wrangling and delay.

The City should pay Gorski his back pay and put him back on the payroll. If he can't work because of work-related back injuries, then he belongs on paid disability status. He walked into court with a cane this morning and moved with extreme care and difficulty. In my opinion, he belongs on desk duty or on the disability list until his agility returns.

The game that the City is playing can bankrupt Sgt. Gorski. Is that its plan? How long could any of us go without a paycheck?

What message is this sending to other police department employees (officers, clerical, telecommunicators)? What message is this sending to ALL Woodstock employees, when the City (the City Manager, the Mayor and the six City Councilpersons, the Human Resources Director) condone this disregard for a decision of its legitimate, appointed Board?

The City Council should tell the City Manager to tell the Human Resources Director to pay Sgt. Gorski. And he ought to get his check on Monday!

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

BOFPC Minutes - Finally

A Special Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) was held today at 5:00PM at the Woodstock Police Department. The purpose was to review and approve the Minutes of nine (9) Special Meetings of the BOFPC which were held from August to February to hear and consider the request of Police Chief Robert Lowen to fire Sgt. Steve Gorski.

Minutes of these NINE Special Meetings were never posted on the City's website.

The Agendas of seven (7) of these Special Meetings were never posted on the City's website.

On June 17 I protested this serious error before the City Council. I informed the City Council that Minutes of Special Meetings are essential to documenting that something official took place and that decisions were made. These meetings represent thousands of dollars of expenses to the City of Woodstock for employee time, executive time, legal services, court reporters and now court costs.

The nine Special Meetings were held:
August 29, 2007
September 17, 2007
October 1, 2007
October 10, 2007
October 11, 2007
November 5, 2007 (According to Minutes, Chief Lowen did not attend this meeting and its closed session from 6:17PM until 8:55PM.)
November 28, 2007
December 5, 2007
February 4, 2007

Initially, the BOFPC approved an unpaid suspension. Three weeks later it changed its order to a paid leave. Two months later (November 28), back to unpaid suspension but WITH medical benefits. Two months and a week later, the Board ruled 3-0 in favor of Sgt. Gorski.

On February 14, the BOFPC issued its Findings and Decision that the charges against Sgt. Gorski were not sustained, and it ordered that Sgt. Gorski be reimbursed for any wages not paid to him (since August 29). "The Chief of the Police Department and other appropriate corporate authorities are directed to implement this order forthwith."

The Board, in its Findings and Decision of February 14, agreed that an unpaid suspension was too severe for what it considered a "minor infraction" of Departmental rules.

At this point the City of Woodstock should have cut a check to Sgt. Gorski for all pay withheld. Did it?

No, it did not.

On March 7, 2008, Police Chief Lowen filed a Complaint in Circuit Court against the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, the three men on the Board individually and Sgt. Gorski, alleging that the Board made a procedural error in granting a Directed Verdict and that it was erroneous in its decision.

In the meantime, the City of Woodstock is in contempt of the direction of the BOFPC to pay Sgt. Gorski for all missed pay.

How much is all this costing the taxpayers of Woodstock???

Pretty disgusting, isn't it?

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT