BOFPC vacancy - who is being nominated tonight?

Before every Woodstock City Council meeting a "packet" is prepared for the members of the Council. It is transmitted from the City Manager to the Council electronically. Fortunately, a copy is posted at the library and at City Hall. Does anyone ever read it? Do the Council members even read it?

The Agenda for a City Council meeting is posted online at least 48 hours before a meeting, in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

One item on this week's Agenda is Council consideration of a person to replace one of three members of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC). Commissioner Tom Schroeder has left the Board, and Mayor Sager is poised to nominate his choice of successor on the Board.

The Mayor gets to nominate, but the City Council must concur. Will it?

The City does not disclose details of the agenda items online. To learn the details you must go to the library or to city hall and read the printed copy of the packet.

Who is the nominee? None other than the former Human Resources Director for the City, Janelle Crowley.

Should she be appointed to fill the unexpired term on the Board? no, No and NO. Why not?

The People of Woodstock depend on the Board to be fair in its decisions. Since those decisions often involve discipline of the city's police department who find themselves in the Chief's crosshairs, it is imperative to have a neutral and unbiased Board. Appointing a former and long-time city director to this Board could mean that at least one member of the Board might tend to favor the city in decisions.

Already the balance is somewhat out of kilter because a second member of the Board is a police chief in a neighboring community. He would be expected to be on good terms with our own police chief. Could that have some influence on decisions of the three-person Board?

Ms. Crowley already holds a position as Chair of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Commission, a hand-picked (by the sheriff), five-member public body of the County. That's enough. Let her serve her volunteer duty there and not also in City of Woodstock.

This appointment will automatically pass tonight, unless a Council member pulls Item 6 on the Consent Agenda for discussion or a member of the public asks for Item 6 to be pulled (and a Council member agrees).

What can you do? Immediately call or email the City Council. And show up at City Hall tonight at 7:00PM.

BOFPC Q'ly. meeting: 8 min.

The three-man Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners met in their first quarterly meeting of 2011 this afternoon at 5:00PM, and by 5:10PM they were ready to head out the door.

After the approval of the September Minutes, a short discussion ensued about the eligibility list for patrol officers. The Woodstock Human Resources Director has said it is okay to extend the current list, but Commissioner Howell asked several questions, resulting in the chief's statement that he will get a legal opinion about whether the list can be extended for 12 or 24 months. Chief Lowen said that there are good candidates and that most are still available.

The Woodstock Police Department is short four officers, and there is a hiring freeze in effect. One commissioner asked about Ofc. Harmon, and another commissioner said that was covered in the Minutes that they had just approved. Of course, this caused me to wonder whether the Minutes, which were distributed just minutes before, had been read and understood before they were approved.

Chief Lowen reported that one officer had been suspended for one day and that the officer had accepted the suspension. The Board asked no questions about the identity of the officer or the circumstances, and no information was offered. It was an FYI only, since the Board only gets involved in suspensions of five or more days.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:08PM.

For a few minutes I thought I was back in a McHenry County courtroom. I hadn't had any difficulty in hearing the chairman of the Board before the meeting started or during it, but it was nearly impossible to hear Chief Lowen's low voice as he addressed the Board.

Maybe next quarter I'll take a sign that reads, "LOUDER, PLEASE". It's nice that the meetings are now conducted at City Hall, but all comments should be spoken loudly enough to be hear in the room.

OMA training for Woodstock BOFPC

Last May the City Attorney for the City of Woodstock sent a rather stern letter to the three members of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) and its attorney about a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA). In that letter it advised the Board that they were to receive training in the OMA law at its next regular meeting.

That was in May. So far, no OMA training has taken place at a regular meeting. Or at a special meeting.

It seems to me that this training is not "optional" for the BOFPC. The Mayor and the City Manager were greatly displeased with the failure of the BOFPC to observe the OMA law. Since the BOFPC members are appointed by the mayor and serve the City, there shouldn't be any hesitation or reluctance to follow the letter from the City Attorney.

But it hasn't.

Will OMA training be on the agenda for the March 1, 2010, Regular Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners?

BOFPC cancels Dec. 7 meeting

The City has posted a cancellation of the December 7th quarterly Regular Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

This would likely mean there are no disciplinary issues (five days or more), terminations, hirings or legal actions involving police officers or the department.

According to the website information about this Board, it is to meet quarterly. Last year a problem arose because the Board apparently did not submit its 2009 calendar of meetings to the City Manager's office. As I recall, there was a delay in approving Minutes that contained the meeting schedule.

This year they won't have that problem, because they haven't had a meeting to approve the 2010 schedule. But that presents another problem, because their meetings are to be included in the annual calendar of meetings to be announced by the City.

This problem could be solved by establishing a regular meeting schedule that would survive year-end, such as deciding that the BOFPC would meet on the first Monday of March, June, September and December, if it's preferable to state the months.

The BOFPC does not meet only "as needed". Since the website information informs the public that it meets quarterly, then it needs to announce its meeting schedule. Let's hope it avoids repeating last year's problem.

Falat Deal - there's more

This morning's Northwest Herald reports another part of the "deal" between the Woodstock Police Chief and Ofc. Mitch Falat, who was suspended for 30 (non-continuous!) days without pay on Wednesday, August 19.

An additional provision of the Agreed Disciplinary Order, not disclosed publicly at the Special Meeting of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, is that Ofc. Falat is to have no intentional contact with City Councilman (and Chief of the Woodstock Fire Rescue District) Ralph Webster.

The newspaper reports that the "Woodstock family" had taken their "concerns" to Councilman Webster.

Why does a family find it necessary to take "concerns" to a City Councilman? One must assume that they had reported their "concerns" to the chief of the Woodstock Police Department. Did they feel that nothing was happening? Or that anything that was happening, was not happening quickly enough?

Falat was disciplined for violating a February 19 order from the chief to have no contact with the Woodstock woman. Therefore, the complaint must have been registered with the police department prior to February. How long before February was their complaint filed?

If he did continue to have contact with the woman, in violation of the February 19 order, what subsequent complaints or reports did the family make to the police department, and why did it take until August 19 for the disciplinary hearing before the Board?

I had a conversation with this family on July 2, and that followed their meeting with the City Manager. Putting pieces of the puzzle together, then it seems to me that the family went to Councilman Webster in June. February-to-June is a long time for lack of decisive action by command personnel at the police department.

And from July 2 - August 19 is a long time to take action to discipline extraordinary behavior or actions against a town resident.

What else is in the Agreed Disciplinary Order? Is there more that has not been revealed? Why was there even any "negotiation" to it? The chief has the authority to initiate discipline. He could have placed the officer on immediate paid leave and requested a Board meeting, which would have been held no sooner than two days later.

Instead, this family had to endure months continued unwanted and improper attention from the officer. Apparently, discipline resulted only after the family appealed to a City Councilman and the City Manager became involved.

By these delays, the City has very likely allowed itself to be exposed to financial liability. The first responsibility is to its own residents, not to its employees. It did not meet its first responsibility in this case.

30-day suspension - not continuous!

Yesterday I wrote about the 30-day unpaid suspension imposed on Ofc. Mitch Falat of the Woodstock Police Department for violation of a department order by Chief Robert Lowen to stay away from a certain Woodstock woman.

Today I learned that Ofc. Falat is on duty, as he was during the period of investigation that preceded yesterday's Special Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.
Upon telephoning Chief Lowen of the Woodstock Police Department, I learned that his unpaid suspension is not 30 continuous days.

No wonder that yesterday's Board meeting was cut and dried. All the Board did was accept the negotiated deal between Ofc. Falat, his attorney and the Police Department. There was no discussion. No witnesses were called. The woman involved and her husband were not called to testify, so that the Board could hear all the details that led up to the "deal." The meeting was over in minutes, without reading or verbal discussion of the deal between the police department and Ofc. Falat.

The Board did not reveal the terms of the Agreed Disciplinary Order during the very brief meeting. They had been given copies of the disciplinary order by the chief and, once in session, they accepted it as offered.

Where is the representation of the victim in this whole matter? Is the City really looking out for the resident?

I didn't ask the chief why the 30 days were not continuous. But something about that arrangement really stinks. If an officer is told by the chief to stay away from a married woman in his community and he doesn't, the discipline needed to be swift and certain. And enough of a kick in the butt that he got the message.

The Board of Fire and Police Commissioners is supposed to serve as a Board of the City of Woodstock that is independent of the Police Department. That's why, I guess, they now, finally, meet at City Hall and not at the police department. But maybe it's time now for a complete turn-over in the Board, which is appointed by the Mayor, with the consent of the Council.

The Mayor, City Manager and members of the City Council ought to be hopping mad at this most recent deal and the way it was handled. Transparency in government has gone out the window. The proper action at the Special Meeting would have been for the charges to be submitted to the Board and the disciplinary agreement read aloud and submitted to the Board, after which they could have voted on it.

There will be more to this story.

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???

BOFPC to meet April 6

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners will hold a Special Meeting on Monday, April 6, 2009, at 5:00PM in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 121 West Calhoun Street, Woodstock.

The Board will finally hold an "open" meeting - one where you don't have to go through a locked door into the inner sanctum and be escorted to a second floor conference room in a secure part of a public building.

Won't it be nice if all future meetings of the BOFPC are held at City Hall, as are, I believe, all other meetings of City Boards and Commissions?

Let's listen carefully after the Board re-convenes in open session after its Executive Session. That's when they vote on any Motion to take action against any member of the police department. They can "discuss" any personnel issue in private, but they must vote in public.

Of course, that isn't how it was done on March 2, according to Minutes. And the question still remains in my mind about the March 12 meeting. Although the Minutes reflect that Commissioner Larry Howell made a motion that was then voted on 3-0, I have no recollection of that Motion and vote.

Sure wish there was a tape of that open session!

Next time there will be a tape, because I'll have it. Under the Illinois Open Meetings Act, open portions of public meetings can be recorded.

"(5 ILCS 120/2.05) (from Ch. 102, par. 42.05) Sec. 2.05. Recording meetings. Subject to the provisions of Section 8‑701 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any person may record the proceedings at meetings required to be open by this Act by tape, film or other means. The authority holding the meeting shall prescribe reasonable rules to govern the right to make such recordings."

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!!!

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?

Glitches in Illinois Open Meetings Act

There are at least a couple of glitches in the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA).

First of interest is the Notice that is required to be given to the public of a meeting of a body such as the City of Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC). The OMA requires Notice to be given in specified ways at least 48 hours before a meeting.

This is particularly tricky when a meeting is called for a Monday at 5:00PM. Do you count the week-end hours? Must notice be posted by Thursday at 5:00PM? Actually not. And not even by Friday at 5:00PM, although that's when it is posted. The law is 48 hours before the meeting.

So, if a secretary posted the Notice in the required places by 5:00PM on Saturday, the Notice would satisfy the OMA.

Could the legislators have worded it differently, to assure the public of two full business days of Notice. They certainly could have!

The second glitch pertains to Minutes of a meeting. The OMA speaks only about required publication of the Minutes within seven days after approval. But what if a public body sits on the Minutes and doesn't approve them?

This happened with the Minutes of the September 8, 2008, Regular Meeting of the BOFPC. The December 2008 meeting was canceled, so the Minutes did not get approved them. The Minutes were approved at the March 2, 2009, Regular Meeting of the BOFPC, six months after the September meeting!

Why is this significant? Because the BOFPC did not submit the dates for 2009 Regular Meetings to City Hall and the dates are not included in the Schedule of Meetings, as required by the OMA. The City will have to address this violation of the OMA and correct it.

The BOFPC has published the Minutes of the March 2, 2009, Regular Meeting as "Draft Minutes - to be approved at the June 1, 2009 meeting."

Why weren't the March 2nd Minutes approved at the first following meeting of the BOFPC, which occurred on March 12th? And when will the March 12th Minutes be available? And if the BOFPC meets on the "tentative" date of March 23 in the O'Doherty matter, will it approve the Minutes of the March 2nd and March 12th meetings? Or, if it doesn't meet on March 23 but meets early in April, will it approve the March 2nd and March 12th meetings then?

Minutes are probably typed up the next day. It probably takes about 15-20 minutes to prepare them, because large portions are boiler-plate.

There are huge problems lurking in the shadows around the March 2nd and March 12th meetings. More about this in another article soon.

Proofreaders - how are you doing?

OK, you proofreaders and editors!

What's wrong with this description of the Woodstock BOFPC?

"Board of Fire and Police Commissioners
"The powers and duties of the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners are established by State Statute and pertain to sworn members of the Police Department. These duties include: to conduct the testing process for appointment as a Police Officer, to administer the testing process for promotions, and to conduct hearings on charges brought against a sworn member of the Police Department. This Commission meets as needed. For more information, contact the Police Chief at policechief@woodstockil.gov or (815) 338-2161."

No prizes, but you get to feel really good about yourself if you find five errors.

Sunshine Week - let it shine

Read this morning's article in the Northwest Herald (or online at www.nwherald.com) about Sunshine Week and how to file a Freedom of Information Act request.

Should information about city affairs be more readily available and sometimes even available upon request without a FOIA request?

A couple of years ago I contacted a Village government office (not Woodstock) for general information about a law on its books. I was told by a clerical employee that I had to file a FOIA request. Dumb! Stupid! A FOIA request to get a village ordinance that is public record?

All that stupid decisions and positions like that do is drive up the cost of government. A sweeping FOIA request can create hours of work for a clerical employee, review by one or more supervisors, possibly even by the village attorney and a lengthy response. Much of that could be avoided by answers that can properly be provided by telephone or allowing examination of general records or ordinances in-person, eliminating the need for a FOIA request.

Another needless expense is asking the City Attorney to respond to a FOIA request made to a City department. Woodstock has a Freedom of Information Act Officer at City Hall. It seems to me that a response should come from that person or from any FOIA officer of a department of the City; if that person feels the need to confer with the City Attorney before responding, I'm sure he'll do so. If the Requestor isn't happy with the response, then he can appeal to the designated person in the City who receives appeals. In Woodstock that's the City Manager.

Why would the City of Woodstock incur expense to have the City Attorney answer a FOIA request? Can't the City get it right without paying its attorney to send it? But to direct the City Attorney actually to respond on behalf of the City? All that does is unnecessarily drive up the legal bills of the City.

Now this gets me thinking about who is the proper person for any appeal to the response from the City Attorney. Is that still the City Manager? I would consider that to be the case.

At last Thursday's Special Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, Northwest Herald reporter Brian Slupski asked what the charges were that had resulted in the Board's decision to suspend a police officer without pay. Now that's a pretty basic and reasonable question.

And the answer from the Board? File a FOIA request. When he tried to file it on the spot, Brian was referred first to the police chief, who was not there, and then with Mr. McArdle in the out-sourced City Attorney's office.

Which, of course, raises another question? Why wasn't the police chief at the BOFPC meeting to state his accusations against the officer? And why didn't the BOFPC call a hearing FIRST, before suspending the officer?

The Minutes of the March 2nd BOFPC meeting should have been approved at the March 12th meeting. They weren't, because "someone" forgot to put Minutes' approval on the Agenda. Apparently, the Agenda was not prepared by the person who normally prepares it. This is a routine provision of Agendas. Was there some nefarious reason that the Approval of Minutes step was omitted from the March 12th Agenda? Delay, delay, delay.

Sunshine Week - let it shine!