Long ago we learned a valuable lesson about government, especially local government: almost nothing good occurs in “closed session” – when local governmental bodies meet without the public or the press allowed to be present to watch, listen and learn; and with no minutes published unless the governmental body expressly authorizes their publication.
Which is almost never.
Closed sessions violate the spirit of open government and, therefore, the circumstance in which they can occur – and the topics that can be discussed in them – are limited by the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”). While a public body is permitted to go into closed session, closed sessions are never required. Additionally, no formal action, such as the enactment of new laws or the passage of resolutions, can occur during the closed session: the public body must reconvene into open session to do those things.
But since most closed sessions seem to occur at the end of the “public” portion of meetings, by the time the closed sessions end and the officials emerge from the darkness and into the light, there often is no “public” or press hanging around to witness and address the formal action that gets voted on.
Not that many years ago most public officials – virtually ALL bureaucrats, and the vast majority of elected officials – operated from the premise that what was discussed in closed sessions was SECRET and could not even be disclosed or disussed outside of the closed session. Obviously, shameless and spineless public officials who like nothing more than to run and hide from their constituents in closed session don’t want anybody revealing whatever tomfoolery they concocted while free from public scrutiny.
At the City Council level it took then-alderman, now Mayor Dave Schmidt to dispel that misguided belief (or wishful thinking) that closed session discussions and information are “secret.” Schmidt took the unprecedented step of publicly blowing the whistle on then-mayor Howard Frimark’s closed session efforts to persuade the Council to buy the 720 Garden property as the future site of a new police station, even though the Council had not yet even decided on whether or not to build a new cop shop – and at a price a couple/few hundred thousand dollars more than the City’s own appraiser said it was worth.
Not surprisingly, Frimark and his alderpuppets were outraged by Schmidt’s disclosure. Frimark not only denounced Schmidt but also proposed a Council resolution formally “condemning” Schmidt and his disclosures. Because “condemnation” of a City alderman has no legal consequences, however, Frimark’s show-trial and 5-1 vote approving that condemnation resolution were merely exercises in futility – and may have even helped launch Schmidt’s subsequently successful bid to unseat Frimark.
Since Schmidt became mayor, closed sessions have become far fewer and farther in between.
But at Park Ridge-Niles School District 64, closed sessions seem to be the preferred way of doing business, as evidenced by the recent hiring process for the new superintendent.
We discussed some of the shortcomings of that process in our 12.27.13 and 01.08.14 posts, so we won’t recount those here. But more recent – and arguably more egregious – abuses of closed session deserves a special dishonorable mention.
At a special meeting last Friday (01.24.14), the D-64 Board scurried into closed session almost immediately after convening so that members could discuss the compensation package they intended to offer the new superintendent, Laurie Heinz. Not surprisingly, the motion for closed session was made by D-64’s own prince of darkness, John Heyde, whose adoration of closed sessions (and secrecy generally) might well be unparalleled in local government over the past decade or two, save for perhaps Frimark’s.
Heyde so relishes closed sessions and secrecy that not only did he advocate conducting teachers union contract negotiations in secret, but he actually built a legal requirement for closed-session negotiations into the contracts he negotiated. That provision guarantees that the taxpayers don’t get to see or hear the exorbitant opening demands that the Park Ridge Education Association (“PREA”) is rumored to make whenever it opens contract negotiations, or see or hear all the ankle-grabbing concessions and outright appeasement by our elected officials who are supposed to be looking out for the taxpayers’ interests and the best interest of the District.
So we fully expected Heyde and his fellow travelers on the D-64 Board to want the same freedom from the prying eyes of the taxpayers and the press when it came to the Board’s formulation of the compensation package being offered to Heinz. And Heyde, et al., did not disappoint last Friday evening.
But Board president Tony Borrelli threw a wrench into Heyde’s plans by suggesting that the discussions of the new superintendent’s contract offer be held in open session.
For the most fleeting of moments, Borrelli’s suggestion seemed to freeze Heyde and his closed-session allies like deer caught in a car’s headlights – before Heyde regained his balance and mumbled an explanation for why closed session was necessary: the Board’s “strategizing for a contract negotiation” should not be done in open session because it would give the new superintendent the District’s negotiating game plan.
You can watch and listen to Heyde’s oratory – and the 6-1 vote (Borrelli dissenting) to go into closed session – by checking out the meeting video and fast-forwarding to the 1:30 mark.
What Heyde can’t seem to figure out – or won’t publicly admit – is that the Board is under no obligation to “negotiate” with Ms. Heinz. The Board could have, and should have, publicly formulated all of the elements of the compensation package it was offering Heinz, and explained why that package is fair and reasonable to Heinz AND, more importantly, to D-64’s taxpayers.
Then, if Heinz disagreed with the fairness of that offer, she could say so – equally publicly – and make her counteroffer, also publicly. That way, the whole process could have played out in full public view, so that the taxpayers could have judged for themselves whether the Board’s initial offer was fair, whether Heinz’s counter (if any) was reasonable, and whether the final deal was fiscally responsible. More importantly, the taxpayers could have judged for themselves whether their Board was being wise or foolish, and whether Heinz was being reasonable or greedy.
But Heyde and his anti-transparency ilk fear that kind of scrutiny and accountability. They want secrecy and plausible deniability at every turn. As we noted in our 08.29.13 post, they wouldn’t even consider televising or videotaping meetings until a group of citizens showed up with a video camera and started doing their own taping.
Given that employee compensation, pensions and benefits make up the overwhelming majority of D-64’s ever increasing operating expenses – now over $70 million/year – the need for complete transparency in every aspect of the compensation process, including union contract negotiations, has become more crucial than ever before. That’s one of the reasons some states (like Florida) have enacted “sunshine” laws that REQUIRE such negotiations to be held in open session.
Complete transparency becomes even more crucial when we keep on electing D-64 Board members who are little more than rubber-stamping stooges for the teachers union and its collaborating administrators – most of whom are former teachers who realize that every teacher pay increase almost always results in commensurate (or better) administrator pay increases.
But the D-64 Board is nothing if not consistent in its never-ending quest to keep the taxpayers in the dark.
Last night it held a special meeting to “Approve Compensation Package for Superintendent designate Dr. Laurie Heinz,” as can be seen from the agenda for that meeting. Not only were there no details of her “Compensation Package” or contract in the agenda itself, but as late as 8:30 this morning – the day after the meeting to approve her contract – the District had still not posted that contract or its terms on its website as the “Exhibit A” referenced at Appendix 2 to the agenda.
Chalk that up as just another sick joke played on D-64 taxpayers, and another bucket of disrespect thrown on those same taxpayers, by the folks entrusted to look out for our interests and the interests of one of our community’s most valuable assets. In other words, it’s still business as usual at D-64.
And the taxpayers can either like it or lump it.
To read or post comments, click on title.
18 comments so far
Oh my god!!!!! The good doctor voted for going into closed session?!?!?! Some seemed willing to over look the twitter “wack job” comments because he was advertised to be a fiscal conservative and an ally for Borrelli. How’s that working out for ya??
EDITOR’S NOTE: It looks like we – and quite a few others – may have gotten snookered. It isn’t the first time, and we’re sure it won’t be the last. On the other hand, with the exception of losing candidate Ben Seib, do you really think that any other of the successful and unsuccessful candidates would have been any less likely to go into closed sessions, or give away the store?
I don’t buy your defense because:
1. At least the others would not behave like a middle school student trying to sell books on twitter.
2. At least the others would have been honest upfront about where they stood. This guy is not who he said he was going to be. As you said, he snookered (fooled) us.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t give a rat’s derriere what anybody does on their own time, or on Twitter. All we care about his how the do their government job.
As for the others being “honest upfront about where they stood,” we doubt most of them (Borrelli being the only exception) know where they stand…other than wherever Heyde, the administrators and/or PREA tell them to.
Just one more follow up to my last comment. I would submit that voting in a way that is not consistent with how you presented yourself in an election is even more of a “go [blank] yourself” to the voter/taxpayer.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It that’s the case, then 99% of all elected officials should just walk around with an image of a “bird” pinned to their chests.
If the rationale for going into closed session was to avoid “giv(ing) the new superintendent the District’s negotiating game plan”, which would suggest a tough, clear-eyed, fiscally responsible approach, then can we expect the announcement of a contract that saves Park Ridge residents some money?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Who knows when the contract will even make an appearance? We understand the District is requiring a FOIA before it will make a copy available to the press. And the Board clearly didn’t have enough respect for the taxpayers to include it in the Board packet BEFORE last night’s meeting – when interested citizens at least MIGHT have had a chance to review it, attend the meeting and comment on it.
But the curtain of secrecy seems to have once again descended fully on D-64.
“If that’s the case, then 99% of all elected officials should just walk around with an image of a “bird” pinned to their chests”.
They should….that is the point!! That is one of the many reasons why in formal polls and informal “cocktail discussions” you will find that 90+% of the voting public thinks that their elected officials (regardless of party) suck!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: If that were true, then all incumbents would get voted out. But it’s not true, which is one of the main reasons – along with gerrymandering – why so many incumbents get re-elected.
Add to that all the chowderheads who vote for candidates just because they coached their kids in soccer/baseball/basketball, or had kids in Indian Scouts/Princesses, or were in the same PTO – without knowing anything about their views on government and public policy – and we’re probably lucky we don’t do worse than the sad sacks we already have.
You may not send unguided missiles but you do a fair amount of collateral damage nonetheless. And you certainly DO demand that those who oppose you prove a negative. Prove that we’ll have more crime without a new cop shop is just one example that comes to mind. And as for invoking Florida’s approach to public education budget processes, I cannot say I’m very impressed with their results. Sure, we can put the pay negotiation up for public scrutiny before and during, not just after — but what will that get you? Every sizeable government purchase is subject to open bidding and lowest rsponsible bidder laws — do you see the public getting more for less under that system? My point: Contract negotiations in public are no silver bullet. Electing people who aren’t bewitched, buggered and bewildered by admin-speak is what we need more of.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You sound a bit unclear on the concept of “prove the negative” because “[p]rove that we’ll have more crime without a new cop shop” is not it: “Prove that we WON’T have more crime without a new cop shop” would be a negative.
What open-session negotiations WILL do is penalize unreasonable conduct by both sides. It will put on public display any unreasonableness in union demands, government offers, ill-advised or stupid comments, intractability or appeasement, posturing, and all those other human dynamics that contribute to the final outcome. Unions don’t want that because they know the taxpayers aren’t likely to see their public employee members in as angelic a light when the taxpayers can see and hear the union folks coming to the bargaining table with demands for 3, 5, 8 or 10% raises, more vacation days, etc.
And that IS a “silver bullet” because the taxpayers get to see and hear for themselves just how “bewitched, buggered and bewildered” their elected officials really are – BEFORE they give away the store and bad contracts get signed – and makes it easier for the taxpayers to throw the bums out of office.
Looks like your boys Borelli and Paterno let you down, PW. Not so smart and smug now, huh?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Public officials who make mistakes or bad policy decisions let down ALL their constituents, even the oblivious and wrong-headed ones, not just one or two people.
We always call ’em as we see ’em – as they appear at the time we call ’em. We never claimed the ability to unerringly predict the future. But if we acquire that ability anytime soon, we’re going after Warren Buffett’s billion dollar NCAA bracket bonanza.
Thank you, PW, for your Editor’s Note to anon 01.31.14 4:06 pm. I didn’t see the importance of open session offer formulation and negotiation until you epxlained what the process would look like. That process should be employed by every local governmental body for every negotiation with every employee or group. You’re right about unions not wanting their demands getting out, and the D64 video from the only 3 minutes of Thursday night’s meeting that was public made me sick. Even Dr. Borrelli’s pitch for open session seemed insincere, although I will give him credit for voting against the closed session. (is the meeting audio bad, because I could barely hear what Heyde was saying?)
I disagree with your perspective of closed meetings from a different perspective.
Having spent some time in government as an elected official, not having closed sessions presents problems.
First problem is that you want all of the facts laid out at the same time to all of the officials for example hiring a City Manager, a Park District Executive Director, or the Super intendant of D64 . So at that time the questions asked would be related to items that aren’t necessarily for public consumption. For example, if a candidate had been charged with a crime but found innocent, you want to understand what the crime was and why they were found innocent. When we were hiring the lead person for a particular lead role in government, you get surprised by items that you find out. You don’t want to hurt a candidate or embarrass him / her for something that happened 20 years ago by researching / discussing that information in a public forum.
Second problem, and this is huge, if you don’t have closed sessions, the only way to get on the same page is through phone calls, private meetings, and emails. Since there is open meeting act laws, you can’t have conference calls with your fellow elected official or group meetings. Since you don’t want back alley deals cut, you allow for closed sessions and eventually those minutes are made to the public. A single call between elected officials is never discussed or disclosed. Hence closed meetings are a better format than private phone calls or private meetings.
Third, you want everything disclosed in a public format. I would love for you to name a government entity in either the U.S.A or around the world that has that openness (transparency). If you can, I would love to study it, because I don’t think it exists for even more reasons then mentioned above.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not surprisingly, your argument for closed meetings totally ignores the public policy articulated in opening lines of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”): “It is the public policy of this State that…the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business” through ensuring that “the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.” Hence, even IOMA’s recognized exceptions to open meetings are not mandatory but merely permissive, with no requirement of secrecy or confidentiality.
The simple solution to your “First problem” is for the public body to go into closed session solely for, and strictly limited to, the purpose of discussing that single embarrassing item. That doesn’t justify going into closed session to discuss the the 99% non-embarrassing items, as the D-64 Board did repeatedly in choosing a new superintendent.
Your “Second problem” deserves the Wolfgang Pauli “It is not even wrong” quote for being so intellectually bankrupt. Closed session discussions are NEVER preferable to open meeting discussions, nor are they preferable to the private one-on-one communications that are permitted by IOMA in order for the members of the public body “to get on the same page.” Not only does that stand IOMA on its head but it wrongly assumes that such a head-stand can be remedied by closed session meeting minutes “eventually” being made public, which is not necessarily true.
Finally, your straw man/red herring argument that we want “everything disclosed in a public format” is simply untrue, as demonstrated by our concession (above) that closed session discussion of embarrassing information can be justified. Nevertheless, seekers of both elective and appointive public offices which, by their nature, involve the public trust should be mindful of Jefferson’s warning that: “When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.”
As you have pointed out before, the “gutless” public officials who want to hide from their constituents will continue to do so while employing every artifice available, using every straw man they can weave together and every red herring they can net. What the d-64 board did these past few weeks was inexcusable but par for the course.
EDITOR’S NOTE: So “par for the course” that it followed the same track not only for Phil Bender’s selection as superintendent 4 years ago, but also the selection of Scott Zimmerman to fill a vacancy on the D-64 board around that same time, as we wrote about in our 09.16.10 post.
And, not surprisingly, D-64’s prince of darkness, John Heyde, was behind all those machinations – just as he appears to have been here, suggesting that he may have more influence over the current Board members than president Borrelli.
So you were an elected public official for the Park District at one time. Did you vote against going into closed sessions?
Also, as a Library Trustee, do you have closed sessions in your current role?
EDITOR’S NOTE: During the 8 years this editor was a Park Board member, he voted numerous times against going into closed session – losing each such vote, by the way; and, to the best of his recollection, only voted for closed sessions on matters of employee discipline.
As a Library Board member this editor recalls voting for closed session only for evaluation of the Library Director.
Meet the new boss (Borelli), same as the old boss (Heyde). Nothing seems to change at District 64, other than the faces of the superintendents and the board members.
EDITOR’S NOTE: While we are very disappointed with how this whole hiring process played out on what technically is Borrelli’s watch, we note again that Borrelli did propose (albeit tepidly) having that 1/24 discussion in open session; and that his was the only vote against closed session.
Four years ago, Heyde ran the Board and was surrounded by same-thinking (or unthinking) sycophants, so he got all the secrecy he wanted. It looks like Borrelli’s stuck with being an army of one.
Your argument against closed session discussions about what to offer the new superintendent make so much sense I have to wonder what the school board members discussed in closed session that they wanted to hide from us taxpayers? If I was going to guess, I would guess it was the reasoning behind paying her more than Bender, which is what the newspaper reported was the reason for Collins’ no vote.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That would probably be a pretty darn good guess, because for Collins to vote “no” and Borrelli to vote “yes” is a puzzlement – albeit one an open-session discussion could have solved.
Compensation includes “a regionally competitive salary for a new superintendent and a streamlined benefits package to reflect the new, scaled back benefit packages of other District 64 administrators put into effect by this Board,” according to Board President Anthony Borrelli.
“The total package for the District 64 superintendent, therefore, is budget-neutral, as it remains as close as possible to the current compensation for this position while still making the adjustments the Board desired,” he noted.
The salary includes:
· Salary of $201,000 per year.
· Payment of employee’s share of required pension contribution to Teachers Retirement System (TRS).
· No cash buy-back for unused vacation days.
The benefits include:
· No fixed mileage stipend, rather reimbursement will be made for actual miles driven based on IRS rate.
· Health and family dental insurances per the teacher’s contract.
· Paid life and long-term disability insurances.
· Payment of employer share of contributions to retired teacher health insurance, TRS, and Medicare.
· Monthly communication allowance.
The overall value of the package is $243,010.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for the information. And your point is…?
If the board negotiated in open session, wouldn’t Dr. Heinz have heard what the board was willing to pay her? Of course she would. If that is the case, wouldn’t she then demand that maximum amount? Of course she would. Wouldn’t that have cost the district money? Of course it would. There are valid reasons for staying in open session when negotiating a contract, but there are also valid reasons for remaining in closed session throughout. This decision may have saved the taxpayers–your precious OPM–tens of thousands of dollars over the next few years.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yours is the kind of comment we would expect from someone who disparagingly refers to “[our] precious OPM.” But see if you can follow the rest of this, because it’s probably as simple as we can make it for you.
1. Anytime you “negotiate” with someone, yes, they get to hear what you’re willing to pay them, which is called your “offer.” And, yes, you’ve got to tell it to them in order for them to “accept” or “reject” it, or to make a counter-offer.
2. What you seem to be referring to erroneously as “negotiated in open session” is the process by which the Board formulated its offer. Done correctly, all of the elements of that process (i.e., analysis of comparable district pay, analysis of the D-64 pay structure, analysis of Ms. Heinz’s qualifications, etc. ) to formulate a “fair offer” could have been done in open session, where both the taxpayers AND Ms. Heinz could see and hear both the process and the result.
3. The Board could then provide that “fair offer” to Ms. Heinz in open session; and Ms. Heinz would get to respond to it, either in an open session or in writing – with the knowledge that her response (acceptance, rejection or counter-offer) would be made public.
4. If she wanted to actually enter into negotiations, they also would occur in open session, within the full view and hearing of the taxpayers (live, or on video) so they could judge for themselves whether their Board was being judicious or foolish with their money (OPM).
Sure, the taxpayers could be harmed by this process – IF the Board’s plan was to come up with a “fair offer” and then attempt to low-ball Ms. Heinz. But if the goal is FAIR compensation, there’s no need to play such games.
And given what we’ve seen from the current Board members – and previous Board members as well – the idea of their snookering ANYBODY (other than their own taxpayers) on employee compensation negotiations is sheer fantasy.
What you are leaving out of the equation is that, in the event the preferred candidate walks away, he or she is not immediately replaceable with another widget that will accept the package as presented. As you may or may not recall, there are many qualities and qualifications, not all of them quantifiable, that go into finding the right “fit” between any organization and any hire. You have been in situations where the third runner-up was hired because the first two walked away. How’d that work out? How much money, morale, productivity and customer revenues did that cost? Can you say labor attorney, class? Not saying that this situation occured because of a low-ball, but of all the reasons to lose a great candidate, being short-sighted about the true bottom line is one of the worst. To decide whether this package offered the incoming is good, bad, fair or not is meaningless. What matters is that, going in, her goal must be to get more value for dollar than we got from Bender. And yeah, by “value” I mean better test scores without raising expenses beyond what is truly outside the board’s and staff’s control. No more “arbitrary” because we can’t or won’t hire a bean counter who can count.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the very same tripe bureaucrats have been using to manipulate soft-headed public officials for years. But guess what?
Unless the “preferred candidate” is IMMORTAL, he or she could croak at any time; or could rescind his/her acceptance; or start working and then simply pickk up and quit. And then where are you? Back looking for “another widget” – perhaps the third runner-up, or even Miss/ter Congeniality – who may or may not be willing to “accept the package as presented” to the dead/rescinded/resigned “widget.”
Of course the bureaucrats and public officials don’t want any scrutiny or discussion of whether the “package offered…is good, bad, fair or not”: they don’t want to be second-guessed. And “value” isn’t even in their vocabulary, or in their fantasyland of non-accountabiliity, tenure, non-merit based (e.g., “step”) pay raises, and retirement after 30-35 years with a guaranteed defined-benefit pension at 75-80% of their last salary (often over $100,000 for 8-9 months work if you’re a D-64 teacher) while the only “guaranteed” retirement benefit for the rest of us is Social Security that maxes out at around $32,000/year.
When the January 30, 2104 Board meeitng video is released, please view it. You will note that not one Board member raises the issue of not going into open session (not even the good Dr.). More importantly, when the time came for all Board members to vote on the compensation package, the good Dr. voted an enthusiastic YES, (and I am paraphrasing now) indicating that he thought the compensation package was “reasonable and fair” in comparison to the surrounding districts. The packge was not relesed to the public or to those who attended the meeting. He and others had a chance to explain. The only dissent was Dan Collins who explained his reasons for voting no. If the good Dr. is so concerned about transparency and his aversion to go into closed session, why did he not make the financial information (which he approved) available to the public? Same old song and dance……
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ll wait for the video, but the trend toward greater transparency and accountability we were perceiving appears to have suffered a setback with this superintendent process.
“……appears to have suffered”?!?!?!?!?! Now that is an understatement.
The good doctor loves transparency and a public dialogue when it comes to something he (or is it his group?) is all up in arms about – Common Core. He writes op eds and asks about a Plan B (shouldn’t he know the answer to that?).
This is all a good thing. I am 100% for a vigorous debate about common core. But I have to wonder where is this “revolutionary spirit” when it comes to the topic of this thread?? You can not be all gung ho about involving the community on one issue and yet choose to keep them completely in the dark on another. Well, I suppose you can but people will see you for what you are.
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>