McCullom Lake PD drops 60 charges

Officer James O'Doherty was cleared in court on Monday of driving on a revoked license, when the McCullom Lake Police Department dropped traffic charges against him that were filed by Kelly Given, now former chief of that department.

Given must have had it in for O'Doherty, because she filed 60 separate traffic violations against O'Doherty, alleging that he had driven a McCullom Lake PD squad car on 60 different dates when he was working and during a time when his driving privileges were revoked. There seems to be a major problem with some of the dates of the charges, because they included dates when O'Doherty was not working and even dates when he was out-of-state. Given had been hired in October as chief of the small department and has since been relieved of those leadership duties.

O'Doherty rode as a passenger in the patrol car while another officer drove. Last time I checked, a driver's license wasn't required for a passenger. Did Illinois law change? Did someone forget to tell me?

Village officials (represented by the Village Attorney, the law firm of Zanck, Coen & Wright, P.C., Crystal Lake) dropped the charges against O'Doherty. The NWH reporter was unable to reach Village President Terry Counley or Village Attorney Jeremy Shaw for comment.

The Northwest Herald devoted considerable column inches to old news involving O'Doherty.

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???

Did I err?

Last week I opined that the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commission had erred procedurally in suspending Officer Jim O'Doherty, because my recollection of the March 12th Special Meeting was that the Board had only stated its decision upon returning to open session, but had not voted in open session on a suspension.

Draft Minutes posted today on the Board's webpages indicate that they did vote on a Motion to suspend that was made during the public, open meeting after the Executive Session.

So maybe I did not recollect correctly. However, there is still a question in my mind, because I recall only the vote to adjourn. So I'll file a FOIA request to listen to the tape of the public portion of the meeting. And, if I can confirm that there was a vote on the suspension, I'll willingly withdraw my opinion and admit error.

Suspending a police officer is a serious matter.

On March 2 the BOFPC met in Executive Session for nine minutes to consider the suspension. I believe that Officer O'Doherty was not informed of the Agenda item, and he did not attend to speak on his own behalf.

On March 12 the BOFPC met in Executive Session for five (5) minutes. Again Officer O'Doherty was not present. Did he even know about the meeting?

At the March 12 Special Meeting the Board indicated that a hearing would be held today, March 23, "tentatively". Today is March 23. The BOFPC did not met.

A new Special Meeting has been posted on the BOFPC website for Monday, April 6, 5:00PM. Because the City does not state whose personnel matter is to be discussed in private, I'll speculate that the topic of the April 6th Special Meeting will be Officer O'Doherty.

And the place? Out in public. Finally. The BOFPC will meet at the City Council Chambers in City Hall. Anyone interested can attend without passing through a security door or being escorted to an interior conference room in a non-public area of a public building.

This is a huge step forward. Thank you to the City of Woodstock and the Police Department for creating a public meeting place for the City's Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

It's nice to see a new line added to the Agenda for the April 6 Special Meeting. The new line reads, "Action on the matters discussed in executive session." This would be the Motion and Vote on action following a private personnel discussion.

Suspension invalidated by procedural errors?

It is very possible that the recent suspension of Officer Jim O'Doherty of the Woodstock Police Department, and the subsequent suspension without pay, may be invalid.

The Board of Police and Fire Commissioners (BOFPC) of the City of Woodstock is subject to the Illinois Open Meetings Act. This Board is a public body whose members are appointed by the Mayor, subject to the consent or approval of the City Council.

At any Regular or Special Meeting of the BOFPC the Board is permitted to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. At the Regular Meeting on March 2 and at the Special Meeting on March 12, the Board did so.

At the March 2nd meeting the Board was in Executive Session for only nine (9) minutes, and it suspended Officer O'Doherty. Chief Lowen was present at the March 2 meeting.

At the March 12th meeting the Board was in Executive Session for about the same length of time (the exact time in and out will be in the March 12th Minutes), and it acted to suspend Officer O'Doherty without pay. Chief Lowen did not attend the public portions of the March 12 meeting.

Now here's the kicker and it's an important one, because it may just invalidate the decisions made by the Board at both meetings.

Under the Illinois Open Meetings Act, the Board is permitted to discuss personnel situations in private - in Executive Session. However, it cannot make a final decision in private!

When the Board concludes its Executive Session, it returns to the open public meeting, and it is then that a Motion is to be made for any particular action and a vote is to be taken, and recorded by name, on the Motion.

I was not at the March 2 meeting, but the Minutes do not reflect any Motion to suspend or any vote by-name on such a Motion. The Minutes merely reflect that the Board exited from Executive Session at 5:19PM and adjourned at 5:26PM.

I was at the March 12 meeting, and it's my recollection that the Board exited from Executive Session and, because Northwest Herald reporter Brian Slupski and I were there, it announced its decision. I do not recall that any Commissioner made a Motion to suspend Officer O'Doherty without pay or any vote by the Commissioners on that issue.

It is my understanding from an attorney in the Illinois Attorney General's office that this violation of the Open Meetings Act presents a major problem for the Board and for the Woodstock Police Department, because a decision reached by the Board in private would have no legal effect without the public vote.

So, what's the next step? Chief Lowen should consider that Officer O'Doherty is an officer in good standing and order that he be paid all wages due him. He should continue on duty status until such further action as the Chief and the Board might take, if any.

One of the actions they might take is not to suspend Officer O'Doherty without allowing him the opportunity for a hearing on any request by the chief for suspension.

And the Board may, upon conducting a hearing to which every police employee of the City is entitled, decide that, in this case, suspension is not warranted. It needs to hear from Officer O'Doherty before reaching a decision!

"Innocent until proven guilty" is still the rule here. Or is it?