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.
Showing posts with label Minutes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minutes. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
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!
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!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Where are the meeting Minutes???
I have begun following the actions of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Commission and the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commission. These public bodies meet regularly and are subject to the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA).
Each Commission is to report publicly all decisions made. Each regularly holds Executive Sessions, during which they discuss personnel issues out of public view; this is permitted in the OMA.
At the conclusion of the Executive Session each must re-convene its open meeting and report decisions that were made in private. This is what is supposed to happen. At the next meeting Minutes are approved and then posted online for the public to view.
On September 8, 2008, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners met. No Minutes have yet been published.
On October 21, 2008, the Merit Commission met. No Minutes have yet been published.
The reason?
Neither body has held a public meeting since, when it would have approved the Minutes of the previous meeting.
In the case of the Board of Fire and Police Commissions the only significant action was to establish the dates for the 2009 Regular Meetings. Because these Minutes were never approved, the 2009 Schedule of (Board and Commission) Meetings for the City of Woodstock does not include the Regular Meetings.
Instead, the 2009 Schedule of Meetings indicates that the Commission will meet as needed and directs one to call the police department telephone number to inquire about meeting dates. However, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners met on March 2 and will hold Regular Meetings on June 1, September 8 and December 7. (A Special Meeting will be held today, March 12, at 5:00PM at police headquarters.)
And the Merit Commission? On October 21, 2008, the Merit Commission, which held (in my opinion) an illegal meeting because not one Commissioner was in the meeting room, voted to support the sheriff's decision to fire a deputy. That decision has never been formally reported, because the Minutes have never been approved and released.
The reason? The Merit Commission has not held a regularly-scheduled meeting since October 21.
The November 12th meeting was re-scheduled (advanced) to November 8. Why didn't it approve the October 21st Minutes at that meeting. Or did it?
The December 10th meeting was canceled.
The January 14th meeting was canceled.
The February 11th meeting was canceled.
The March 11th meeting was canceled.
Will the April 8th meeting be held as scheduled?
Have there been no disciplinary actions within the Sheriff's Department since October 21? Doesn't the Merit Commission take notice of lawsuits filed against the Sheriff's Department?
Commissions must find a way to approve Minutes promptly after meeting and release them to the public and the media. Minutes could be forwarded the following day to members of the Commission and approved by email consent.
Without that prompt release, there is high concern for transparency.
Each Commission is to report publicly all decisions made. Each regularly holds Executive Sessions, during which they discuss personnel issues out of public view; this is permitted in the OMA.
At the conclusion of the Executive Session each must re-convene its open meeting and report decisions that were made in private. This is what is supposed to happen. At the next meeting Minutes are approved and then posted online for the public to view.
On September 8, 2008, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners met. No Minutes have yet been published.
On October 21, 2008, the Merit Commission met. No Minutes have yet been published.
The reason?
Neither body has held a public meeting since, when it would have approved the Minutes of the previous meeting.
In the case of the Board of Fire and Police Commissions the only significant action was to establish the dates for the 2009 Regular Meetings. Because these Minutes were never approved, the 2009 Schedule of (Board and Commission) Meetings for the City of Woodstock does not include the Regular Meetings.
Instead, the 2009 Schedule of Meetings indicates that the Commission will meet as needed and directs one to call the police department telephone number to inquire about meeting dates. However, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners met on March 2 and will hold Regular Meetings on June 1, September 8 and December 7. (A Special Meeting will be held today, March 12, at 5:00PM at police headquarters.)
And the Merit Commission? On October 21, 2008, the Merit Commission, which held (in my opinion) an illegal meeting because not one Commissioner was in the meeting room, voted to support the sheriff's decision to fire a deputy. That decision has never been formally reported, because the Minutes have never been approved and released.
The reason? The Merit Commission has not held a regularly-scheduled meeting since October 21.
The November 12th meeting was re-scheduled (advanced) to November 8. Why didn't it approve the October 21st Minutes at that meeting. Or did it?
The December 10th meeting was canceled.
The January 14th meeting was canceled.
The February 11th meeting was canceled.
The March 11th meeting was canceled.
Will the April 8th meeting be held as scheduled?
Have there been no disciplinary actions within the Sheriff's Department since October 21? Doesn't the Merit Commission take notice of lawsuits filed against the Sheriff's Department?
Commissions must find a way to approve Minutes promptly after meeting and release them to the public and the media. Minutes could be forwarded the following day to members of the Commission and approved by email consent.
Without that prompt release, there is high concern for transparency.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
