Mayor's comments way over the top

I was going to title this article "Mayor Spanks Resident", but I decided not to.

The Woodstock City Council met tonight. During the Public Comment period I addressed the Council about the City's failure to respond to what I considered a legitimate and polite inquiry. In my remarks I asked why applicable permit and Impact fees had not been paid, and why permits had not been issued, for a remodeling project on a house within the City Limits.

In my remarks I identified the address but not the name of the resident. I specifically stated that I had relied on information from the City about the applicability of Impact Fees.

I asked why no permits for electrical and plumbing work had been issued. Why there had been no inspections. Why no new Certificate of Occupancy had been issued. I asked whether new new owner of the property, which sold on July 12, would be responsible for the fees or if the property owner at the time of remodeling would be assessed.

I stated how I knew there had been no permits issued; I had examined the property file at City Hall. Whatever prompted my inquiry is not relevant.

I stated that I had sent an email on July 27, which had not been answered. I hand-delivered a letter on August 1, and I had received no response. I emailed again on September 4 and received no response. On September 9 I was told that my August 1st letter was "upstairs", meaning on the second floor where the Mayor's office is located.

At the conclusion of my remarks Mayor Sager launched in a public spanking and attacked me verbally, improperly using the authority of his office as Mayor in an attempt to humiliate me. Fortunately, I don't cower in the face of a bully's attack. The mayor had his response prepared and didn't like at all that I had asked questions about the home of a "highly-regarded public employee". He seemed to be reading from his notes as he attacked me.

Then he invited members of the City Council to pile on. Councilman Ahrens was first, and he said that he considered my questions about the issue to be slander. He accused me of making false statements.

Every one of my statements in my inquiry was fact-based. The information came right out of the City's property file, both what was in the file and what was conspicuous by its absence.

Then Councilman Turner piled on, accusing me of costing the City tens of thousands of dollars in time to handle my FOIA requests. He mentioned my requests had been "incredibly burdensome" to the staff.

At that point I got tired of being hammered and stated that I had gathered my information through a FOIA request. When the Mayor insisted that they would speak and I would not, I objected.

Mayor Sager appeared visibly upset and announced a recess (sort of like picking up your marbles and going home, if you can't get your own way), and he led most of the Council away from their seats into his office behind the chamber.

I wonder what they talked about back there. If they talked about any City business, such as my remarks, then they violated the Open Meetings Act, since five of the seven were in that office.

The lawyer from Rich Flood's office, Ruth (her last name was not given during the meeting), said that Impact Fees are not due on remodeling, only on new construction. The Mayor, members of the Council and she must have not heard my early statement that I had been told by staff at the Community Development Office that Impact Fees are collectable on remodels.

If they aren't, why didn't Mayor Sager respond to my emails of July 27 and September 4 and say so? Most of the issue could have been cleared up early in August through a prompt, business-like reply. Does he think that, since he is King (errr, Mayor), then he doesn't have to be concerned with responding to lowly subjects of the kingdom?

Nothing in the Roberts Rules of Order grants any privilege to a member of a public body to verbally berate a resident who questions their processes.

I, for one, refuse to accept insults tossed at me by people in power (in their own minds, at least).

I would like to thank Council members Saladin, Thompson, Larson and Dillon for not piling on. I wonder if they knew I was right. I hope you don't get spanked for not supporting the other three.

The Mayor announced that no further action would be taken. I guess that means that the City won't collect double the permit fees for remodeling, plan review, electrical, plumbing and HVAC; won't inspect electrical and plumbing work; and won't require the new Certificate of Occupancy called for in the City Code.

The City's own booklet, The Permit Process, warns residents about not getting permits. On Page 1 it reads, "Furthermore, if they were to suffer a loss due to fire or a structural incident, their insurance carrier may require documentation for the work that may have caused the loss was completed under a building permit and that the work was inspected by a qualified individual."

If I were the new owner at 1341 Winslow Circle, I think I'd be conferring with my insurance agent, real estate agent and attorney to confirm that everything is in order.

Was the City Council right to vote?

Last night the Woodstock City Council voted 5-1 to approve a Special Use Permit for Woodstock Christian Life Services that includes the demolition of Grace Hall (subject to one condition that probably won't provide much of a hurdle for them).

Should the Council have voted on this matter last night?

There is a nomination for Landmark status of Grace Hall pending before the City Council. The Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously on November 10, 2008, to recommend Landmark status to the City Council. The City Council would not give immediate attention to the HPC recommendation. Instead, it waited until April 21, 2009, and then quickly tabled that nomination. To date, the Landmark nomination has not shown back up on an Agenda for a City Council meeting.

When the Council was about to vote No on the WCLS petition on April 21, the Mayor handed WCLS and Mark Gummerson an invitation to ask the Council to hold off on a vote until a later date.

Last night City Code Section 7.7.3.1 was read to the Council. "Any person ... may submit an application to the (Historic Preservation) commission requesting that a building ... within the city be designated as a landmark." That application was submitted in proper form to the Historic Preservation Commission.

Like it or not, property rights or not, this is the law in Woodstock.

Furthermore, "Upon nomination (emphasis added) or designation of landmark status, such building ...shall be afforded the protection of the historic preservation ordinance."

Some laws people like, some they don't. But this too is the law in Woodstock. Therefore, when the Historic Preservation Commission approved the motion to recommend landmark designation, Grace Hall moved under the protective umbrella of the historic preservation ordinance. In fact, it may have acquired that protection earlier, when it was nominated for landmark status.

The purpose of the protection is to buy breathing room. It is is demolished, it's too late to say, "OK, it's a landmark."

A Memo from the Deputy City Manager with the packet to the City Council informed them that "A simple majority of the Council is required to approve this motion (to approve the WCLS Special Use Permit, which includes the demolition of Grace Hall.)" The DCM's memo was silent about the pending landmark nomination.

The problem with the "simple majority" sentence is City Code Section 7.7.3.4 (F), which reads "To override a recommendation of the (Historic Preservation) Commission, a favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all elected members of the City Council is necessary."

This is called a "super-majority." A super-majority of seven is 5.25. Because 1/4 of a Council person cannot vote, you have to round that up to a full person, making six (6) the required number of votes needed for a super-majority of the Woodstock City Council.

Although that Section was also read to the Council, it proceeded with its vote and announced that the 5-1 vote carried the motion. One Council member was absent from the meeting, and RB Thompson voted against the Motion. As soon as one present member voted against it, it should have been declared defeated.

The City Attorney explained to me after the meeting that I had made an "interesting" legal argument. And he explained that allowing a minority to control a decision is just not the way a society functions. A majority rules.

He also explained that WCLS was first in line; it requested demolition of Grace Hall (as part of its overall Special Use Permit) before the Landmark nomination petition was filed with the Historic Preservation Commission.

While I didn't read every word in the City Code, I suspect it doesn't say that a property owner remains at the head of the line, if he jumps in the door with a request to tear down what could become a Landmark. It was the WCLS move to demolish Grace Hall that triggered the Landmark nomination, and I'll bet that is exactly what the City Council had in mind in the past when it created City Code Sec. 7.7.3.1.

My continuing question is the City Council (and the entire government in Woodstock) is - What about the City Code? Why do you feel that you can play "three blind mice" (okay, well, seven blind mice) with the City Code?

The City Code is the law in Woodstock. Or is it?

City Council - Special Meeting July 7

A Special Meeting of the Woodstock City Council will be held on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, at 4:00PM at the Stage Left Cafe, next door to the Woodstock Opera House.

The meeting is a Strategic Planning Workshop and is described in the Agenda published on the City's website as "a working session of the City Council and City Administration."

According to the Agenda, this is a public meeting, but no public comments will be entertained.

The City is probably sliding safely past the requirement of the Illinois Open Meetings Act regarding publication of the Notice of this Special Meeting by providing a link to the Notice and Agenda at the bottom of the home page (below the end of the Calendar); however, it would have been better to place this Special Meeting also on the Community Calendar in place of "No Regular City Council Meeting."

It's certainly possible that a resident or other interested party would examine the Community Calendar and believe that the City Council would not be meeting at all on July 7, and then learn later, after the fact, that the Council had, in fact, met on July 7. It's true that there is no "Regular" City Council meeting, but the Calendar does not include the Special Meeting that will be held.

I believe that the Mayor and City Manager want to avoid any appearance of lack of transparency in government. I think they are sticklers for observance of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. Hopefully, such an omission won't occur in the future.

Hint: perhaps all the Horses of a Different Color clutter could be removed from the Calender, so that important City business would be more prominent.