HPC meets tonight at 7:00PM - NOT!

According to the Community Calendar posted on the City's website, the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) was scheduled to meet tonight at City Hall at 7:00PM. The meeting is still on the Calendar as I type.

Just after sending a long email to the HPC, asking the Commissioners to discuss tonight why its recommendation (on November 10, 2008) for Landmark status has never been forwarded to the City Council for approval, I re-checked the City's Community Calendar. SURPRISE! After the meeting was posted to the Calendar, a notice was placed on the Agenda webpage for the Commission that tonight's meeting has been canceled.

You have to go to the Agenda itself to learn that the meeting was postponed, not canceled. The meeting has been re-scheduled to Monday, March 9, 7:00PM. A more correct entry on the City's Community Calendar would be "Postponed", not Canceled.

Who decides whether a scheduled meeting should be held or canceled? The Chairman? The Commission as a whole cannot decide, because it would require a meeting, properly scheduled and announced to the public under the Illinois Open Meetings Act, to cancel a meeting.

Why is the HPC stalling on this? The Landmark recommendation should have gone to the City Council for consideration in December. It should have been placed on the City Council Agenda for the first Council meeting in December. Will delaying the March meeting until March 9 mean that it will be too late for the recommendation to be placed on the March 17 City Council meeting Agenda?

The HPC did not, at its November 10, meeting hold any vote on delaying the recommendation and, in fact, did not even have any discussion. The Minutes of that meeting reflect only that one member, now the Chairman of the HPC, stated that he would like the City Council to postpone making its final decision until April. And then the Commission voted to approve Landmark status - without any reference to delaying the recommendation.

Delaying the recommendation plays right into the hands of Woodstock Christian Life Services (WCLS), owner of Grace Hall. On April 20 WCLS will ask the City Council to issue a demolition permit. Its plan has always been, and still is, to demolish Grace Hall.

WCLS will threaten legal action if the City Council does not issue a demolition permit. Mark Gummerson, representing WCLS, has already thrown that flag down on the playing field.

If the City Council votes against Landmark status (or doesn't even consider it) and approves a demolition permit, the Petitioner for Landmark status should be ready with legal papers to request an injunction against WCLS and to prevent demolition. And these papers had better be ready for filing at 8:00AM on April 21.

And the Petitioner should be ready with her own lawsuit against the City for denying the Landmark status recommended by the HPC,, if that's the way it goes. So the City could end up getting sued either way.

If the wrecking ball is in place on April 20, ready to swing its first blow on April 21, then the Petitioner's lawyer had better plan to wake up a judge at midnight after the City Council meeting and get the injunction issued before the engine of destruction starts up on April 21.

No foolin', folks. This gracious building, which could be used as senior housing or wonderful office space, deserves to stay in place. It could be saved. The fact is the WCLS wants it gone.

A topic for another article will be the totally unfair ordinance passed by the City Council last fall that places onerous, and impossible-to-meet, conditions on the Petitioner personally to save Grace Hall. Watch for that article soon.

Grace Hall Update

Tonight's Historic Preservation Commission meeting shed some new light on the Grace Hall adventure. Four members were present: Chairman Allen Stebbins and members Don Frick, Lucia Matlock and Erika Wilson.

The first 85 minutes of the meeting were devoted to a project planned for the southwest corner of Calhoun and Tryon. Plans are for a senior center, providing assisted living arrangement in about 56 units. More on that in a separate article to follow.

Where is the groundswell of public opinion for Grace Hall? Does a little cold weather keep everybody home? Only Landmark status petitioners Dan and Caryl Lemanski attended.

Allen Stebbins and the City's Nancy Baker provided update information on the involvement of historic preservation interests. In summary (it's getting late), there is a potential local developer who is exploring acquisition of the building and moving it.

The HPC will delay its request to the City Council for landmark status. The historic preservation agencies seem to be encouraging this.

I myself see danger in the delay.

I addressed the HPC and requested them to consider that the November HPC "Public Hearing" may not have been a Public Hearing, but instead a public meeting.

Chairman Stebbins recalled, as did other HPC members, that, when the November meeting was opened, former Chairman Tim Art said that all testimony would be sworn testimony.

But saying so doesn't make it so. The HPC had no legal representation that night. No one from the City Attorney's office attended, and I guess no one (except me (or is it, except I)) is interested in finding out why not. Without the City Attorney, or his representative, there to swear in those who are to speak, how can statements become sworn testimony.

They can't.

I also suggested that it was not a valid Public Hearing because there was no audio recording and there was no verbatim transcription of the supposed Public Hearing. And there certainly was no cross-examination. But why would there be? Without sworn testimony, there is no need to cross-examine anyone who spoke.

The attorney for WCLS is an excellent attorney. My guess is that he quickly realized that it was not a valid Public Hearing, so why ask questions? At the first Public Hearing, when the attorney for WCLS asked for a continuance, he said his reason was that he had not had time to prepare to cross-examine witnesses. As I said tonight, "Mark Gummerson is a great attorney, and he is ready to cross-examine when he wakes up in the morning."

Asking for a continuance (and having the City Attorney's designee show up with the okay in his pocket) was an excellent ploy by Mr. Gummerson. Oh, wait; the City Council does not like the word "ploy"; okay, it was an excellent tactic.

Will demolition take place in May? That's only four months away. Has the wrecking ball been scheduled? Someone knows...

Grace Hall Landmark Update

If you are following the Landmark designation nomination of Grace Hall by the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission, then you'll want to attend this Monday night's meeting to hear and participate in the update.

When: Monday, January 5, 2009
Time: 7:00PM
Where: Woodstock City Hall, Council Chambers, 2nd floor

The Commission can expect questions from the public about the timing of the recommendation to the City Council. Is it to be considered without further delay? If there will be a delay, for what reason and until when?

The public's interest in this designation and the preservation of this 100-year structure needs to be increasing. If it is stagnant or declining, well, that's another matter.

Be there. Bring friends and interested parties. Get on the phone and get others there. The Council chambers need to be packed with participants and observers.

This is a good opportunity to invite high school and college students to learn how the peoples' interest in a community can be heard.

See you there!

HPC down to two members

Woodstock's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is down to two members - incoming Chairman Allen Stebbins and Erica Wilson.

Thanks to Lucia Matlock, Merida Johns and Tim Art for their service.

If you are interested in serving on this important Commission, please contact Allen Stebbins or City Hall and express your interest.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission should be Monday, January 5, 2009, at 7:00PM in the City Council chambers at City Hall. Watch the City's website for the Agenda, which will confirm the meeting date and time.

An important item for the Agenda is discussion about how to get the recent recommendation of the HPC for Landmark status of Grace Hall on an early Agenda of the City Council. This matter should not be allowed to languish in the twilight zone at City Hall until just before the wrecking ball starts to swing at 318 Christian Way.

I have written previously about my suspicion that, when the recommendation reaches the City Council, there will be a strong objection from Woodstock Christian Life Services that no valid Public Hearing was held by the HPC.

The opinion of the City Attorney is that the November 10, 2008, meeting of the HPC was a valid Public Hearing, even though there was no testimony under oath, no audio recording of the meeting and no transcript of the proceedings.

Grace Hall - Doomed?

According to the City Attorney's office, the November 10th Public Hearing of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission was a valid Public Hearing.

On November 12 I wrote about the questions in my mind surrounding this meeting.

You may remember that prior Public Hearings of the Woodstock Plan Commission were conducted in a different manner. Anyone wishing to speak at the Public Hearing was first sworn by an attorney from the City Attorney's office - sworn to tell the truth. As I recall, not sworn to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"; just sworn to tell the truth. We who are picky about language will say there is no difference. You either tell the truth or you don't.

The opinion of the City Attorney's office about the November 10th Public Hearing, as relayed to me via a member of the Historic Preservation Commission, was "...Rich Flood's office has said that while sworn testimony before HPC would have been preferable it is not legally required nor does it render the proceedings defective. ... he cited a legal precedent that since neither WCLS nor HPC objected during the public hearing to the failure to administer oaths the issue is effectively waived..."

Why was sworn testimony on the Woodstock Christian Life Service's request for Special Use Permit taken by the Plan Commission, but not taken by the Historic Preservation Commission when a Petitioner submitted a request for Landmark status of Grace Hall? At two meetings this past summer an attorney representing the City attended Plan Commission meetings and was available to advise the Plan Commission on the conduct of the public hearings.

Yet at the first Public Hearing of the HPC on the Landmark issue, a younger member of the City Attorney's staff was sent as messenger to advise the HPC to concur with the Objector's (WCLS) request for continuance. And that he did. With the result that the HPC took a nap for a month, in spite of the fact that WCLS would ask the City Council on the very next night to approve its plan - which the City Council did!

And then, on November 10, when the Public Hearing resumed, no legal representative of the City was present.

So, on these points:

1. sworn testimony before HPC would have been preferable
2. it is not legally required
3. nor does it render the proceedings defective.
4. ... a legal precedent that since neither WCLS nor HPC objected during the public hearing to the failure to administer oaths the issue is effectively waived

If sworn testimony would have been preferable, then why wasn't the Public Hearing of the HPC conducted in the "preferred" manner? Obviously, the City saved money by not having to pay for an attorney to attend and advise the HPC. The City also skipped the expense of audio-recording the Public Hearing, and it skipped the expense of a court recorder to record and transcribe the Public Hearing.

Does this oversight (or disregard) actually result in converting the November 10 Public Hearing to a "public meeting" with no legal effect whatsoever?

Is sworn testimony really not "legally required" at a Public Hearing? If it is not, then why were the Plan Commission Public Hearings conducted with sworn testimony. It was at the second Plan Commission Public Hearing, when I realized that testimony was sworn testimony, that I raised the issue that the Plan Commission had very likely heard sworn but untrue testimony at its first Public Hearing of the summer on the WCLS matter. I have seen no evidence that the City has made any effort to ascertain whether, in fact, untrue testimony was presented.

Could the proceedings of the HPC be defective without sworn testimony? Not being a lawyer I am not prepared to comment as to whether the Klaeren case in Illinois law is considered applicable to the HPC Public Hearings. Some municipal law firms believe its impact is broader than just to that case.

It's the fourth point that causes me to hesitate the longest before I would consider agreeing that the Public Hearing of November 10 is valid.

" ... a legal precedent that since neither WCLS nor HPC objected during the public hearing to the failure to administer oaths the issue is effectively waived..."

Since the HPC planned the meeting, it certainly would not have objected to the failure to administer oaths. It would not even have known to do so.

And counsel for WCLS? You can bet he knows whether the administration of oaths is required. And why would he object? My guess is that he sat there (sort of like the
Cheshire cat), knowing that the Public Hearing was invalid without sworn testimony, and that the wise course of action was not to object then, but to wait until later - perhaps at the second April 2009 meeting of the City Council. And then he will object to the Council's consideration of the recommendation of the HPC, saying that there was, in fact, no (valid) Public Hearing and, therefore, there is no valid recommendation that the Council can consider.

Is the legal precedent referred to by the City Attorney applicable in this particular matter? Can such an important factor as truthful testimony be waived by either or both parties just by remaining silent (or ignorant, in the case of the HPC)? I doubt it.

Well, maybe I'm just crying "Wolf!" At the second April 2009 meeting of the City Council, perhaps it will accept the recommendation of the HPC, grant Landmark status to Grace Hall and withhold the Demolition Permit. Wanna bet?

Grace Hall - What's Up?

A notable omission from the December 2 Woodstock City Council Agenda is the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) recommendation for Landmark status of the building known as Grace Hall.

Section D Minutes & Reports is where the Minutes of the HPC would be transmitted to the City Council. Plenty of time has passed for the Minutes to be prepared and submitted. What's the hold-up? Are there any Minutes?

On November 21st several people met at Woodstock Christian Life Services to tour the building. The meeting was attended by Terry Egan (WCLS), City Councilman RB Thompson, Christina Morris (National Trust for Historic Preservation–Midwest Office), Lisa DiChiera (Landmarks Illinois), Anthony Rubano (Illinois Historic Preservation Agency), Kathleen Spaltro and Allen Stebbins.

Where was the Petitioner for the Landmark status - the Lemanskis? Working, probably. Others had requested notice of the meeting, which was not forthcoming. Where was the press? Where were other concerned community members?

The meeting was described as "very positive and productive" and supposedly "resulted in some possibilities for saving Grace Hall."

I'll tell you one possibility. The Landmark status that was approved by the HPC and which the Northwest Herald reported as not to be considered by the Woodstock City Council until the second meeting in April.

That meeting will be shortly before the wrecking ball arrives on the "campus" of WCLS.

Those at the meeting are to reconvene via teleconference in about two weeks (first week in December? was a date set?). Other interested parties who wish to participate should contact Allen Stebbins and any other member of the HPC to learn the date, time and location of the public meeting to be held by teleconference.

And the public should demand that the recommendation of the HPC for Landmark status be considered at the second December meeting of the City Council (if there is one) or at the first January meeting of the City Council.

Unless the people of Woodstock want to see a pile of rubble at the end of May where Grace Hall used to stand, they'd better get organized, meaning with a first-class, out-of-McHenry County attorney with the smarts to stop the demolition and a key independent historic preservation expert who works solely for the Petitioner. Otherwise, buy your face masks early to protect yourselves against all the brick dust that will fly, when the walls come tumbling down.

Landmark - Not until April???

The Northwest Herald reports this morning that the Woodstock City Council will not decide on the Grace Hall Landmark designation until April 2009. Tim Kane wrote a good article, but he's kidding; right? Is this an early April Fool's Day joke?

First step is to learn whether the Historic Preservation Committee held a valid Public Hearing on Monday, November 10. If it did, then the recommendation to grant Landmark status should go immediately to the City Council and be considered at the next City Council meeting.

If Monday's Public Hearing did not qualify as a valid Hearing, then the continuation of the October 6 Public Hearing should be scheduled immediately.

Reporter Tim Kane was kind enough not to name the "city officials" who gave him the April information.

What would an April consideration mean? For starters, it would mean that WCLS would not have to cancel any reservation already made for the wrecking ball.

Further, if the City runs rough-shod over those who wish to preserve the historic Grace Hall, approves an unconscionable Ordinance placing insurmountable requirements on two individuals personally, and holds off on Landmark status to April, demolition is assured.

This is why a strong Committee to Save Grace Hall is needed and why such a Committee needs a lot of money to hire an expert, experienced, preservationist attorney of its own - NOT legal representation from the City.

The City has shown its true colors by abandoning the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). The Plan Commission isn't treated as a step-child. It gets a lawyer at its Public Hearings. But the HPC?

First, it gets a junior attorney (a very nice young man, probably fresh out of law school) from the City Attorney's office who wasn't even told where to sit in Council chambers when he showed up at the first meeting! Then, during that meeting, counsel for WCLS freely gave legal opinions to the HPC that should have come from its own legal advisor. Worst of all, he showed up with "marching orders" from Rich Flood not to contest a WCLS Motion to continue the hearing until November 10. That November 10th date, of course, was well beyond the following night's City Council meeting that had the Grace Hall issue already on the agenda.

Mark Gummerson is a great attorney; perhaps the best in Woodstock. And his client and he had to have a loud and long laugh later in the evening (in private, I'm sure) at the ineptitude of the HPC.

That was excellent lawyering by the counsel for WCLS, and Chairman Tim Art refused to allow me to speak that night to argue for holding the hearing. Was it all set up at the front of the room before the October 6 meeting was called to order. The HPC members held a stand-up meeting at the front of the room. Looking back, I should have walked up to listen it. Even at the time, I wondered whether it constituted a legal meeting under the Open Meetings Act. While the members were in the meeting room, they seemed to be holding a hushed discussion.

What were they really talking about? Where to go for pizza after the meeting? NOT!

HPC Public Hearing - Valid or Not?

I was licking my wounds from Monday night's Historic Preservation Commission meeting again this afternoon, and I got to wondering whether it was, in fact, a legal meeting. I think there is a strong chance that it was not.

The minor point in my mind is that the Commission may not have called the roll of Members present. Without that's having actually been done and recorded, the record and Minutes might only reflect that Chairman Tim Art called the meeting to order at 7:02PM and proceeded with business. For legal purposes, could a case be made that only he was present, since the record won't reflect otherwise?

The major point in my mind is that Monday night's meeting was scheduled as a Public Hearing. My understanding is that testimony in a Public Hearing is sworn testimony. The person about to speak swears (or affirms) to tell the truth, identifies himself by name and address, and then speaks to the Commission. That didn't happen.

The Petitioner spoke. The Objector spoke. Others spoke. All without being sworn. Of course, they couldn't be sworn, because the City Attorney's office didn't send an attorney to the Public Hearing!

If Monday's meeting was not a true Public Hearing, then is the recommendation to the City Council that it grant Landmark status to the building known as Grace Hall worth anything - legally? It may be that a bunch of people just gathered in the City Council chambers on Monday night and exchanged a lot of hot air, and nothing legally took place.

The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) should find out why its attorney did not show up. How could it conduct business on a matter of some great importance without adequate legal advice at the time of the meeting?

Knowing that Woodstock Christian Life Services is represented by an excellent attorney, Mark Gummerson, should have been a mandate for a senior partner with the City Attorney's office to attend this public hearing. Instead, no attorney from the City Attorney's office showed up. Did the assigned attorney "just forget" or was no attorney designated to attend? And if not, why not?

Further, the HPC should get a written legal opinion from the City Attorney as to the validity of Monday night's Public Hearing. Otherwise, the HPC will forward its recommendation for Landmark status to the City Council, and the City Council will decide that it cannot accept it because no (legal) Public Hearing was held before the Commission voted unanimously in favor of the status.

The clock is running. The countdown to demolition has started. In fact, a month has already passed.

Those in favor of preserving Grace Hall should be gathering support of the entire community. A dozen proponents will not be enough. Fundraisers should be held. A preservation effort should be organized and incorporated. City Council meetings should be packed with those favoring the continued life of Grace Hall. Expert legal advice should be lined up, or else Woodstock residents will be watching the wrecking ball knock down Grace Hall in May 2009.

It cannot be assumed that the City will be of any help at all. The City Council has already doomed Grace Hall, and the coming Ordinance, drafted by the City Attorney, must not be passed by the City Council. But they can be persuaded - if enough people start showing up.

Woodstockers, you - that's Y-O-U - can make a difference. Get involved. Knock on doors.

Was there a clever reason that the City Council picked the target date it did for the deadline? Someone has commented that the date is right after the local election this spring. Let's say that the entire Woodstock City Council is run out of town on rails and a new team moves in. There might not even be time for them to act to reverse the course that was set, when this City Council approved the demolition of Grace Hall in October.

There are legal steps that can be taken, even at the 11th hour when the bulldozers and wrecking ball are rolling into town. The right lawyer, with the right petition to the court, can stop the demolition. But it costs money. Lots of money.

WCLS can examine adaptive re-use in depth and find a creative way to use Grace Hall. It doesn't "want" to do that, but it can. It would be better if it didn't get an alternative jammed down its throat. WCLS claims it "needs" to demolish Grace Hall. Actually, it seems more correct to say that it "wants" to do that; there is no way that it "needs" to do that. It's not a toxic waste site.