Those who attended last night’s City Council meeting may have seen Council history being made when a motion to go into closed session to discuss a “personnel” matter was…defeated!

That “personnel” matter was a discussion of goals and objectives the City Council intends to propose to beleaguered City Manager Jim Hock in furtherance of a 90-minute, lack-confidence discussion the Council held in closed session, without Hock’s being present, on November 7th.  As we understand the situation, Hock will need to substantially meet these goals and objectives by April or risk significant job-related unpleasantness.

So when Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd) made the motion to go into closed session, the vote approving it was a foregone conclusion – until Alds. Dan Knight (5th), Marty Maloney (7th), DiPietro himself and Sal Raspanti (4th) all voted “no.”

As best as we can tell, that was the first-ever vote by a Park Ridge City Council not to go into closed session.  And, frankly, we aren’t aware of a closed session motion being defeated by any other of our local governmental bodies.

That’s because public officials generally love closed sessions.  There, they can say what they want the way they want, free from public scrutiny and whatever political consequences such candor might invite.   As a result, most officials seem to cast a knee-jerk “yes” vote at the mere mention of any of those permitted exceptions to open meetings contained in the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”).

But last night at City Hall it was different. 

As soon as the motion was made and seconded, Knight asked for a more detailed explanation of what was going to be discussed in closed session.   Upon being informed that it would be Hock’s goals and objectives, Knight asked why those shouldn’t be discussed openly – a question that no other alderman either could or would answer.

That’s exactly what should happen every time a motion for closed session is made, whether it’s at a City Council meeting, a D-64 or D-207 school board meeting, or a park board meeting.  No elected official should ever again accept a mere recitation of the particular statutory section of IOMA that identifies the permitted closed session purpose, or a one or two word shorthand invocation of its purpose – like “personnel matters,” or “land acquisition,” or “litigation.”

The question that needs to be asked in response to each such motion is: “Exactly how will holding this discussion in open session harm the residents and taxpayers?”  And whatever answer is given should itself be dissected and challenged as vigorously as those t.v. ads for that electronic belt that’s supposed to produce 6-pack abs.

What that slim majority of the City Council did last night in rejecting a closed session may have been a very small step on the long journey toward government transparency and accountability.  But it was a step forward nonetheless – one that, hopefully, will be followed by many more such steps, not only at 505 Butler Place but also at 164 South Prospect, 1111 South Dee Road, and 2701 West Sibley Avenue.

Because, as we learned from the events of a July night 42 years ago, one small step can also be a giant leap.

To read or post comments, click on title.