Last week we wrote about one element of bad City government: the fiscal irresponsibility of the City Council in over-riding Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of the new (and undeserved) 2+ year sweetheart contract for City Manager Jim Hock.
Today we address another element of bad City government, the latest example of which also occurred last week and also involved Hock: Public officials who apparently prefer to govern in secret and think that’s what “closed sessions” are for.
Last Thursday night, Hock and City Clerk Betty Henneman hosted what they called a “Candidate Information Session” for the aldermanic candidates in the upcoming April election. Not a bad idea, until the point where (as we understand it) “information” turned into misinformation when Hock and Henneman advised those in attendance that what is discussed in Council “closed sessions” under the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”) is expected to be kept confidential; and that its disclosure will be frowned upon.
In other words, what goes on in closed-sessions stays in closed-sessions.
And if that kind of keep-it-under-your-hat attitude wasn’t bad enough coming from Hock and The Hen, current Alds. Rich DiPietro and Joe Sweeney, who also are candidates and were in attendance that night, reportedly sat silently in seeming endorsement of that concept.
Although secret closed sessions might be the way Hock, Henneman, DiPietro and Sweeney would like to conduct City government, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s “Guide to the Illinois Open Meetings Act” (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/openmeet.pdf) advises otherwise:
“[IOMA] requires that all meetings of public bodies be open to the public unless the meetings fall within one or more of the exceptions….” (Guide, at page 20);
“The exceptions authorize but do not require the closing of a meeting falling within their scope” (Guide, at page 20);
“A public body cannot sanction one of its members for disclosing information or issues discussed in a closed meeting” (Guide, at page 28); and
“[T]here is nothing in [IOMA] that provides a cause of action against a public body for disclosing information from a closed meeting.” (Guide, at page 29).
For those of you with short memories or who are new to the workings of City government, back in January 2008 then-Ald. Dave Schmidt blew the whistle on the closed-session Council discussions concerning then-mayor Howard Frimark’s secret push for the City to buy the 720 Garden property for a new police station, at $200,000 more than the City’s appraised value. That earned Schmidt a Frimark-orchestrated official but legally-meaningless “condemnation” by Frimark’s “Alderpuppets” – including DiPietro – and also by The Hen on March 3, 2008.
Almost 3 years later, it appears DiPietro and Henneman still don’t (or don’t want to) “get” IOMA, and they’ve been joined in their Star Chamber mentality by Hock and Sweeney. Worse yet, they are attempting to bamboozle the City government newbies with their misinformation and propaganda.
Hock looks to be permanently lost in the bureaucrat funhouse on this point, while Henneman looks to be equally lost but generally harmless (other than to the extent she can sanitize City Council meeting minutes). And we’re stuck with DiPietro for another two years, because that’s all his new term will be and he reportedly has told constituents this is his last “campaign.” Nevertheless, we may be witnessing the end of the Culture of Secrecy that has pervaded City government for so many years.
That’s because we finally have a mayor who cares about, understands, and complies with IOMA. And it looks like we finally may be getting a couple/few aldermen with similar views.
To read or post comments, click on title.
5 comments so far
I remember the silly condemnation of Schmidt. Since DiPietro signed off on it, it should come as no surprise that he would sit quietly while the Open Meetings Act was mis-explained.
At the last mayoral election, all but one of the people who told me they were voting for Ald. Schmidt over (incumbent) Mayor Frimark mentioned the issue of secrecy in government. As near as I can discern, secrecy is a neuralgic issue among the electorate.
Nice word Lloyd…
And it should still cause great pain to the masses. There is no reason for Hock or Hennamen to be saying these things if they are not true.
It’s one thing to talk about discretion for those issues that should be treated in such a manner; it’s another thing altoghther to say to preach secrecy when it is not warranted.
6PM:
How do you know that what was discussed might not have been a great deal closer to your first senario than your second?? How do you know??
6:00PM:
You worte the following…”It’s one thing to talk about discretion for those issues that should be treated in such a manner; it’s another thing altoghther to say to preach secrecy when it is not warranted”.
How do you know that what was said does not match your first senario rather than the second?? How do you know??
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s the problem with secrecy.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>