Gov't. - of, by, for the People

As I drove to tonight's Woodstock City Council meeting, I thought about this great country and how we are governed. Seems like I heard years ago that it is "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." With that thought in mind, I arrived at the meeting - almost on time, but not quite.

I had seen the agenda for tonight's meeting and that Det. Cipolla was to be promoted to Sergeant. Having been reading the Minutes of the Police and Fire Commission online and having the beginnings of understanding as to how that Commission is supposed to operate, I wondered how the Police Department was going to promote him, when no Minutes (available online) reflected any consideration by the Commission of such a promotion.

I also wondered how the Police Department was able to promote him. Was there a vacancy in the Department? Were they filling the spot that is held by Sgt. Steve Gorski? Was the quota of sergeants being increased?

The agenda for tonight's meeting was ordered so that the promotion and oath of office for Det. Cipolla's promotion preceded the Public Comment period.

I asked the City Council why all the Police and Fire Commission meeting Minutes are not posted online. The Agendas appears online, but Minutes of all meetings do not. I suggested that it is critical for Minutes of all meetings to be prepared. If the Commission meets, Minutes should be recorded. If they go into closed session, then Minutes of the closed session should be kept separately. When the closed session ends, the Minutes of the open portion of the meeting resume.

I also asked for more notice to the public of Special Meetings of the Police and Fire Commission. According to the City's rules, a meeting can be called on 24 hours' notice, and then a Notice of the meeting is to be posted in a conspicuous place. I proposed that more notice be given, so that the public has a chance to learn of the meeting and attend.

City Manager Tim Clifton answered my questions. On May 6 the City Council temporarily increased the number of Sergeant positions.

On June 2 the Police and Fire Commission approved the promotion of Det. Cipolla to Sergeant.

As many in Woodstock are aware, Police Chief Bob Lowen is trying to fire Sgt. Steve Gorski. Sgt. Gorski was suspended without pay on August 29, 2007. At the February 4, 2008, Chief Lowen asked the Police and Fire Commission for authority to terminate Sgt. Gorski, but the three-man Commission voted 3-0 that Sgt. Gorski should be reinstated with full pay and interest on back pay. There is no public record of this meeting!

The City Council approved a "temporary" increase in the number of sergeant's positions on May 6. When the Department finally accepts the ruling of the Police and Fire Commission and reinstates Sgt. Gorski, what will happen to Det., now Sgt. Cipolla? Will he be demoted? Or will the temporary position be made "permanent"?

Instead of reinstating Sgt. Gorski, Chief Lowen is pursuing legal action and will ask Judge Maureen McIntyre on July 18 to decide whether the Police and Fire Commission wrongfully cleared Sgt. Gorski.

What is going to happen on July 18? Arguments will be made to Judge McIntyre, and then she'll take some time (probably) to deliberate before announcing her decision. Of course, it is always possible that she'll decide that the case is open-and-shut and make her decision on the spot. The three-man Commission was able to; perhaps she will be able to.

If not, she'll set a date for her decision, and everyone will traipse back to court to hear it. How long with that take? Another month or two without a paycheck for Sgt. Gorski? More interest to be paid for the City's delay in paying him? Certainly, more legals fees incurred by the City.

I was directed to avoid discussing "Mr. Gorski's" employment because it was a personnel issue and is in litigation. Continuing with my remarks about the operation of the Police and Fire Commission, I mentioned that we weren't talking about "Mr. Gorski", but rather Sgt. Gorski. In my mind, that "slip" showed me the direction of the City, and I believe the City is going to find that it is going down the wrong road.

After the meeting I began to wonder when Chief Lowen got permission from the City Manager and the City Council to pursue this legal action and to expend City funds in doing so. Was this done in open session or in executive session? And who will pay for the legal defense of the three Commissioners, since they are named in the Chief's legal action, along with Sgt. Gorski? Is the City going to be paying for both ends of this legal action (except for Sgt. Gorski's portion)?

In thinking further about Government of the people, I question why the police chief is challenging the decision of the Police and Fire Commission - the "People". "The People" spoke on February 4. They said to reinstate Sgt. Gorski. Yet 4 1/2 months later, Sgt. Gorski remains on unpaid leave.

You tell me - if you went almost a year without pay, what financial shape would you be in?

Is there a win/win solution here?

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

Missing Meeting Minutes

When appointed Commissions of the City of Woodstock convene, Minutes are to be prepared as documentation of action taken or considered by the Commissioners at the meeting. These important Minutes are the permanent record of what happened in the moment. Days, weeks, months or years later it may be important to review what decision was made by the Commission and what action was taken.

Why is this important right now? There are several reasons.

On February 4, 2008, the Board of the Police and Fire Commission (or is it the Fire and Police Commission?) met to consider a request by Police Chief Robert Lowen to terminate Sgt. Steve Gorski. After listening to the Chief and the City's side of the matter, the Commission was asked to issue a directed verdict in favor of Sgt. Gorski. This was before Sgt. Gorski spoke at the meeting.

The three-man Commission [Ron Giordano, Chmn., Tom Schroeder and Larry Howell [a resident of Woodstock and Chief of Police in Lakewood, Illinois)] agreed with Sgt. Gorski's attorney and ordered that Sgt. Gorski should be reinstated with full pay.

This decision by the Commission is apparently nowhere documented (except by the Northwest Herald on February 6 in both an article by Jenn Wiant and an editorial by Kevin Beese), as no Minutes of the February 4 meeting are posted on the City's website under Minutes of the Police and Fire Commission.

If this important Special Meeting is not documented, what official record of the decision of the Commission exists?

The police chief does not like the decision of the Commissioners, and he filed for an administrative hearing in McHenry County Court, and Judge Maureen McIntyre will hear arguments on July 18. The Chief's position is, according to a Northwest Herald article on March 11, 2008, by reporter Brandon Coutre, that the Commission's "...hearing was legally flawed and wrongfully cleared (Sgt. Gorski). "

In the meantime, Sgt. Gorski has been on leave without pay since August 29, 2007. Going six months without pay has got to be hard enough; now the City has added four more months by refusing to follow the decision of its own three-man Commission.

And what we must facing is taxpayer-funded legal fees on both sides of the issue before Judge McIntyre, because the police chief blames the Commission for wrongfully clearing Sgt. Gorski. The Commissioners will have to have legal counsel. Will the three be represented by only one lawyer, or will each of the three decide that he must have his own attorney - meaning three attorneys? What will this cost Woodstock taxpayers? Are we paying lawyers to argue against lawyers we are paying? What are we - the Lawyers Relief & Retirement Fund?

But - back to the issue. Isn't it appropriate, when a City Commission is named in a wrongful action and summoned into court, for the members of that Commission (remember Messrs. Giordano, Schroeder and Howell?) to convene a meeting to discuss the charges and begin preparing their defense?

I cannot find any Agenda on the City's website for such a meeting. Will they just walk into court on July 18, throw themselves prostrate on the floor before Judge McIntyre, and beg "Puh-leez, Your Honor, we didn't do anything wrong." Not hardly.

Where are the Minutes of a special meeting of the Commission to authorize retention of legal defense and to fund that defense? Will the Commission have to hire outside, independent counsel, if the City/Police Department will be using the City Attorney? Or did the Chief get outside counsel and will the Commission use the City Attorney? Not likely, since the City Attorney's office was the one "prosecuting" Sgt. Gorski on behalf of the Police Department.

Did the Police and Fire Commission violate any Open Meetings Act requirements by discussing their plans for defense out of the public hearing? (Email, phone, fax, handwritten or typewritten messages?)

Every meeting of the Commission must be announced, albeit only 24 hours in advance - which gives the public virtually no opportunity to be present. See the City Code, Title 2, Chapter 12:

"2.12.3: MEETINGS:
The Board of Fire and Police Commissioners shall meet upon the call of the chairman or upon the motion of the remaining two (2) members of the Commission. Notice of such meeting shall be given in writing to each member of the Board at least twenty four (24) hours prior to the time set for the meeting. In addition, a notice of the meeting shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the Police Department not less than twenty four (24) hours prior to any such meeting. (1986 Code) "

Does this mean that an interested person must go to the Woodstock Police Department EVERY DAY to check the "conspicuous place" (assuming this is the bulletin board in the lobby, which is open to the public), in order to learn if the Commission is meeting?

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

More Analysis in Sgt. Gorski Matter

If you would like to read additional well-thought-out, informative opinions of the matter of the City of Woodstock vs. Sgt. Steve Gorski, be sure to follow the postings on www.mchenrycountyadvocate.com

Excellent issues are being raised. For example, just what is the authority and the power of the Fire and Police Commission of the City of Woodstock?

What's also interesting about this whole deal is that the Agendas and Minutes of the Fire and Police Commission, as posted on the City's website, do not reflect all the meetings of this Commission. How can that be? EVERY meeting of a City Commission should be announced, have an agenda and be recorded. It's the proof that a meeting actually took place.

Now, these meetings are being held to discuss a personnel issue and to discuss an employee's confidential medical records. Okay. So, if this issue and these records are to be discussed in a closed meeting to protect the employee's confidential medical records as provided under HIPAA, then the Commission should be called to meet, convene, agree to the purpose of the meeting, go into closed session (where Minutes are also to be kept and preserved), exit the closed session and re-convene in open session, discuss any other business and, if none, state when the matter will next be discussed and adjourn.

The webpage for the Fire and Police Commission does not show all the meetings of the Commission. This error should be corrected immediately by posting all previous Agendas and Minutes of every meeting of this Commission.

Opinions, anyone?