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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

Court Date Passes Too Quietly

Today was to be the day that Judge Maureen McIntyre issued her Decision in the case of Lowen v. (Woodstock) Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. By now you know what this case is all about. If you don't and if you wonder, search on this site for "Gorski".

This case has muddled along for months - for too many months. Filed back on March 7, 2008, it should have been a slam-dunk. In July a Conference Scheduling court date resulted in a Continuance to August 15. On August 15 the case was set for a Hearing on October 15.

Now, remember, in all this time Sgt. Gorski is not being paid, in spite of the order by the 3-man Board of Fire and Police Commissioners on February 14, 2008, to the Chief and to the City to reimburse Sgt. Gorski for past wages.

On October 15 Judge McIntyre took the case under advisement. A written decision was expected on December 15.

December 15 came and went. Then she broke her arm and the January 14 Decision date was continued to today, February 17.

Yesterday I was told that today's court date was canceled. Now, keep in mind that Sgt. Gorski doesn't talk to me, so I didn't hear it from him. I immediately wondered how a court date could get canceled. Last Friday I had called the courthouse, knowing that Monday was a holiday. The case was still on.

This morning the Case was listed on the hallway monitors. In the courtroom the case was printed on the court call for today. So it wasn't "canceled."

When the case was called at 9:36AM, no attorney approached Judge McIntyre. I was sitting right in the front row and could not hear Judge McIntyre's words. At 9:48AM I asked the bailiff what was going on with the case, and he told me that the judge was going to continue the case, but "they" haven't made out the Order yet.

After 10:00AM the judge was winding up business and asked me why I was there. I informed her that I was there for her Decision in Lowen v. Board. She said the case was being continued to March 24.

Now I've got to wonder - aloud - make that ALOUD - where the attorneys were for the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and why they weren't screaming bloody murder about one more delay. Of course, they don't have anything at risk. The 3-man Board risks no financial loss. They made a decision on February 14 and it will either be upheld or not.

But the person whose career, health and financial status are in turmoil has great risk. The City canceled his health insurance last fall. Nice, eh?

Here is a 19-year employee whose continued employment was supported in February 2008 and who now, a full year later, has still not received one dime from the City of Woodstock.

And where is the City in all this? It is playing out the lawyer-game in court. Drag it out as long as you can. After all, "we" have more money than you do. "We" have the City treasury at our fingertips.

It is way past time for members of the City Council to take back control of the City and strike down their senseless legal maneuvering and waste of taxpayer dollars! The City is paying for the City Attorney to represent the Police Chief in this case. The City must be paying for the Naperville law firm to represent the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, since it is a city commission. And there is an excellent chance that the city is going to end up paying Sgt. Gorski's attorney's fee.

There is a reason why lawyers' words in court are called "arguments." They are supposed to argue their case on behalf of their clients. In this case where are the arguments?

What possible reason could there be for Sgt. Gorski's attorney not to appear before Judge McIntyre at 9:36AM and (politely and respectfully) demand her decision? This Decision was supposed to be made on December 15. Now, we all know that nobody "demands" anything of a judge. In the courtroom the judge is King, which is how it should be. But a good lawyer can present such strong and compelling reasoning that the judge will agree.

Where were the good lawyers today?

Chief’s wife runs for C'ville Trustee

The natives are restless in Carpentersville!

In its upcoming Village election set for April 7, there are three contenders for the Village President position and there are eight candidates in the race for Trustee. The pecking order on the ballot has been determined, but here's the fly in the ointment.

The petitions of every - that's every - candidate have been challenged. Last Monday evening the Carpentersville Electoral Board met to consider the challenges, and on Friday at 6:30PM the Board will meet again. Somebody, make some extra coffee!

One of the candidates for Trustee is Debra Lowen, wife of Woodstock's Police Chief Bob Lowen. Mrs. Lowen's baking skills are well-known to Woodstock residents who attend the monthly Coffee with the Chief, because she bakes the goodies and sends them into Woodstock as treats for the Monday evening program each month. And they are delicious! Thanks, Mrs. Lowen.

Challenges filed by two objectors listed many irregularities on the signed petitioners submitted for this election. Somebody went to a lot of work to check each name and figure out why the person should not have signed the petition. (And some people say that I have a lot of time on my hands!)

But get this! Only one irregularity was presented in regard to Mrs. Lowen’s petition. According to Verified Obfector (sic) Frank Stoneham, Nominating Papers for the April 7th election are, by State law, to contain at least 148, but not more than 225, signatures of qualified, registered and legal voters.

Mrs. Lowen committed the unpardonable sin, in Frank Stoneham’s mind, of presenting petitions signed by 241 voters. Shame, shame, shame…

First of all, what could possibly be the reason for such a limit imposed by State law? Why should there be any maximum limit at all?

All the Board has to do is find a minimum of 148 of the signatures to be of “qualified, registered and legal voters” and stop counting. Pretty simple.

Will it throw out her petition because she presented 16 signatures too many? I certainly hope not! Usually, there are numerous collectors of signatures. And heaven help the candidate who discards a petition containing signatures; right? So she did the right thing by submitting all the petitions. Good luck, Mrs. Lowen!

Perhaps the Board will throw out all the objections of Frank Stoneham, who was brash enough to list VERIFIED OBFECTOR (sic) in bold print on his otherwise very official looking objection forms. What is an Obfector? There may be such an animal, but I didn’t find it in my dictionary.

Mrs. Lowen’s candidacy for Trustee in Carpentersville does bring up an interesting local question. The Woodstock City Code requires all sworn officers of the Woodstock Police Department to live in McHenry County. Their address in Carpentersville is in Kane County. And I thought I had read somewhere that the City of Woodstock required its police chief to live in Woodstock.

I would guess that the depressed real estate market might have something to do with the Chief’s not having moved to Woodstock. And 17 miles isn’t all that far, should he have to come back in the middle of the night on business. But the residency requirement is in the City Code. Who can make an exception to that? Only the City Council?

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

Courtroom 201 - No surprises

About 20 minutes into this morning's call the case of Lowen vs. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) (and Sgt. Gorski) was called by Judge Maureen McIntyre. Called pretty loudly, too. And then the volume dropped.

It was possible to hear portions of the statements by Dane Loizzo, attorney for Sgt. Gorski, and Elizabeth Wakeman from Dave McArdle's office (office of the City Attorney), representing Chief Lowen and the City of Woodstock.

On behalf of Chief Lowen Ms. Wakeman asked the judge for more time. Seems that Mr. McArdle wants to review some records. Well, what in the world has been going on since February 14th? Only just now did he decide he needs to review more records?

Sgt. Gorski's attorney argued against these further delays and informed Judge McIntyre that Sgt. Gorski hasn't been paid since October 2007. The judge gave Chief Lowen's attorney 45 days to file a brief and set the next court date for mid-September.

What a joke! Any "records" don't have a thing to do with this Administrative Law Hearing. All Judge McIntyre has to decide is whether the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners erred in granting a directed verdict in Sgt. Gorski's favor in February.

And what if they did? As I have written previously (find below by searching for "Gorski"), all that will happen is that the BOFPC will re-convene. The Chief has completed his testimony; he won't get to add anything new or make further statements. The BOFPC will call Sgt. Gorski, ask him to state his name and then ponder the weighty decision facing them - - just how long should they look serious before re-stating the same decision that they announced in February?

How much money is the City of Woodstock wasting on this (what could I call it? starts with st----) legal action?

And how much financial pain is it heaping on a 19-year employee?

Keep in mind that on February 14 the BOFPC directed Chief Lowen and the City of Woodstock to pay all Sgt. Gorski's back pay to him.

WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE THIS?

AND WHEN WILL THEY PAY HIM?

2008 © GUS PHILPOTT

Open Letter to Mayor and Woodstock City Council

An open letter to Mayor Sager and City Council Members Dillon, Turner, Webster, Thompson, Larson and Ahrens:

On February 14, 2008, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners issued its Findings and Decision in the Sgt. Gorski matter. It seems to me that this important document should have been ratified at the March Regular Meeting of the BOFPC. At the least, that document should have been referred to in Minutes. Without official documentation, it has become invisible.

As you must know, Sgt. Gorski was exonerated by the Board. Chief Lowen's charges were not sustained. The charge against Sgt. Gorski was dismissed by the Board. The Board ordered that the City pay Sgt. Gorski all unpaid back wages.

Apparently, the City has not done this.

What the City should do is pay Sgt. Gorski all his back wages and return him to duty status. This was the Board's finding. According to the BOFPC, Sgt. Gorski remains an employee of the Woodstock Police Department and the City.

The Board issued its Findings and Decision five (5!) months ago. The City flinched in court on last Friday morning by ducking the conference scheduling for which the court date existed. I fully expect the City, through its City Attorney, to claim on August 15 that it has been unable to resolve the matter and then to proceed with conference scheduling.

When Chief Lowen's case was called, it was not even important enough for him to be there; at least, I didn't see him. I understand that he was not required to be there but, still, the City is spending a lot of money and he should have been there. Rich Flood was not even there but instead sent an employee attorney from his office. An employee of the City Attorney's office would have no authority, other than to stall the case for another month. If they were serious about settling the case, the settlement would have been ready to be presented last Friday.

In the meantime the City's legal fees continue to grow. Is there some reason that the City does not require expediency in resolving legal matters, in order to keep legal fees and costs as low as possible?

More importantly, when the case was called, the BOFPC was not represented before Judge McIntyre. This was a huge error, unless they have some reason to believe that Chief Lowen's case is not really against them. The Commissioners are officials of the City of Woodstock; yet they were not there and their legal counsel, if they have counsel, did not approach the bench when the case was called.

It's an extremely shabby way to treat a 19-year employee.

The City has exposed itself to financial peril by not honoring the decision of the three-man civilian Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. Their 3-0 decision in February cannot be over-emphasized. If you haven't read the Findings and Decision, please do. You'll get the full impact of the decision by reading it carefully.

If the Chief eventually wins his case before Judge McIntyre, all that will happen is that the case will go back to the BOFPC, which has no reason to change its Findings and Decision. To complete any hearing that they might be ordered to reconvene, all they will do is call Sgt. Gorski, listen to his name, rank and badge number, and make the same decision - that Chief Lowen has not proven his case. Why would they change that decision?

I would like to believe that you are men and women of honor and integrity. You can demonstrate this by directing Mr. Clifton to pay Sgt. Gorski all back wages immediately and return him to duty without further delay.

Mr. Clifton, will you please forward this to Commissioners Giordano and Schroeder, whose email addresses I do not have. Thank you.

Gus Philpott

cc: Commissioner Howell
City Manager Tim Clifton

Lowen v. Gorski - See Ya Next Month

The lawyering in court began this morning, when Woodstock Police Chief Robert Lowen's attorney met with Sgt. Steven Gorski's attorney before Judge Maureen McIntyre in the Circuit Court of the 22nd Judicial District at the McHenry County Government Center.

Who are the defendants? The three Woodstock residents who are commissioners of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) and the sergeant.

What happened in court? The next court date was set for August 15, 2008 at 9:00AM, and Sgt. Gorski's attorney, Tom Loizzo, is to speak with Rich Flood, City Attorney for Woodstock.

This was worth a four-month wait???

The Woodstock City Attorney, Rich Flood, should have been in court, not one of the hired guns who could not commit to anything except the next court date. No wonder our court system is clogged to the breaking point.

If I had been Judge McIntyre, I would have sent Attorneys Flood and Loizzo into a conference room and told them to stay there until they settle. Of course, she couldn't do that because Rich Flood wasn't there. I could be wrong, but I didn't even see an attorney for the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners at the bench after Judge McIntyre called the case.

Last February the Board didn't buy the Chief's charges against Sgt. Gorski. Without even hearing from Sgt. Gorski, the Board ruled 3-0 in favor of Sgt. Gorski and ordered that the charges by Chief Lowen be dismissed. The Board also ordered that Sgt. Gorski was to receive his back pay.

That was February 14, 2008.

That was five months ago.

Has the City paid Gorski his back pay? No!

Instead Chief Lowen filed a case in Circuit Court in March, requesting an Administrative Law Hearing.

All that happened today was a "scheduling hearing." The lawyers stood before Judge McIntyre and were to lay a schedule by which the court case started by Chief Lowen will proceed. Instead, they will come back on August 15.

Will the City reinstate Sgt. Gorski, deliver all his back pay (as ordered on February 14 with statutory interest)? Or will they plead for more time?

This is likely to mean months more of wrangling and delay.

The City should pay Gorski his back pay and put him back on the payroll. If he can't work because of work-related back injuries, then he belongs on paid disability status. He walked into court with a cane this morning and moved with extreme care and difficulty. In my opinion, he belongs on desk duty or on the disability list until his agility returns.

The game that the City is playing can bankrupt Sgt. Gorski. Is that its plan? How long could any of us go without a paycheck?

What message is this sending to other police department employees (officers, clerical, telecommunicators)? What message is this sending to ALL Woodstock employees, when the City (the City Manager, the Mayor and the six City Councilpersons, the Human Resources Director) condone this disregard for a decision of its legitimate, appointed Board?

The City Council should tell the City Manager to tell the Human Resources Director to pay Sgt. Gorski. And he ought to get his check on Monday!

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

BOFPC Minutes - Finally

A Special Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) was held today at 5:00PM at the Woodstock Police Department. The purpose was to review and approve the Minutes of nine (9) Special Meetings of the BOFPC which were held from August to February to hear and consider the request of Police Chief Robert Lowen to fire Sgt. Steve Gorski.

Minutes of these NINE Special Meetings were never posted on the City's website.

The Agendas of seven (7) of these Special Meetings were never posted on the City's website.

On June 17 I protested this serious error before the City Council. I informed the City Council that Minutes of Special Meetings are essential to documenting that something official took place and that decisions were made. These meetings represent thousands of dollars of expenses to the City of Woodstock for employee time, executive time, legal services, court reporters and now court costs.

The nine Special Meetings were held:
August 29, 2007
September 17, 2007
October 1, 2007
October 10, 2007
October 11, 2007
November 5, 2007 (According to Minutes, Chief Lowen did not attend this meeting and its closed session from 6:17PM until 8:55PM.)
November 28, 2007
December 5, 2007
February 4, 2007

Initially, the BOFPC approved an unpaid suspension. Three weeks later it changed its order to a paid leave. Two months later (November 28), back to unpaid suspension but WITH medical benefits. Two months and a week later, the Board ruled 3-0 in favor of Sgt. Gorski.

On February 14, the BOFPC issued its Findings and Decision that the charges against Sgt. Gorski were not sustained, and it ordered that Sgt. Gorski be reimbursed for any wages not paid to him (since August 29). "The Chief of the Police Department and other appropriate corporate authorities are directed to implement this order forthwith."

The Board, in its Findings and Decision of February 14, agreed that an unpaid suspension was too severe for what it considered a "minor infraction" of Departmental rules.

At this point the City of Woodstock should have cut a check to Sgt. Gorski for all pay withheld. Did it?

No, it did not.

On March 7, 2008, Police Chief Lowen filed a Complaint in Circuit Court against the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, the three men on the Board individually and Sgt. Gorski, alleging that the Board made a procedural error in granting a Directed Verdict and that it was erroneous in its decision.

In the meantime, the City of Woodstock is in contempt of the direction of the BOFPC to pay Sgt. Gorski for all missed pay.

How much is all this costing the taxpayers of Woodstock???

Pretty disgusting, isn't it?

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

Time For a Change?

Some in Woodstock think it is time for a change - a change in the recording secretary of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

In February the Board made an important decision which has never been documented in the form of Minutes of the meeting. The three-man Board voted 3-0 in favor of NOT terminating Sgt. Steve Gorski and directed Chief Lowen to reinstate him with full back pay.

This decision and award of back compensation creates a financial obligation on the City of Woodstock, and it should have been met within one week. Gorski has gone without pay since the Chief suspended him at the end of August, 2007.

Instead, the Chief filed in McHenry County Court for an Administrative Law Hearing, and that Hearing is scheduled for Friday, July 18.

From February until July? Five more months without pay.

The recording secretary of the BOFPC has been Tamara Reed. She is the administrative assistant to Chief Lowen. She is a good worker and a happy person - an asset to Woodstock and to the City of Woodstock.

Typically, I would venture a guess that Minutes of a meeting, especially an important meeting like the February Special Meeting, would be prepared and published online within a week or so. Even if the bulk of the meeting had been in Executive Session, when the closed portion of the meeting was over, the Board should have re-convened in public and announced its decision.

However, five months have passed, and no Minutes of the February meeting have been published. I understand that the City's administration is working with the BOFPC to obtain the Minutes.

It is critical to the City and to the BOFPC that the Minutes be prepared on a timely basis and that they be correct and complete. I propose to the City that the Village Clerk become the recording secretary of the BOFPC.

Having an impartial recording secretary should eliminate any appearance of conflict-of-interest, undue influence, or possible omission of important facts and decisions.

The BOFPC is the defendant in the above-mentioned Administrative Law Hearing. Didn't the Members of the BOFPC convene to discuss what action they will take to defend themselves and how their defense will be paid for? Where was the announcement of that Special Meeting? Where are the Minutes of that meeting?

Or did they just talk about it among themselves? And, if they did, was that a violation, even if unintentional, of the Illinois Open Meetings Act?

I commend the Commissioners for their decision in February. They listened to the City's side of the story and did not even need to hear from Sgt. Gorski. This needs to be recorded and preserved in City records.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

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