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