By: Diane Benjamin
The Open Meetings Act is law to prevent government officials from colluding among themselves where citizens can’t see the process of reaching decisions. Here is the opening text of the law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=84&ChapterID=2
(5 ILCS 120/1) (from Ch. 102, par. 41)
Sec. 1. Policy. It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business. In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
What kind of “business lunch” is Renner and Hales having with “select” aldermen?
Here’s a few examples:
http://blnnews.com/2015/10/23/september-eating-at-your-expense/
http://blnnews.com/2015/04/24/the-latest-eating-on-your-dime-report/
http://blnnews.com/2015/02/20/more-eating-at-your-expense/
http://blnnews.com/2014/12/18/eating-on-your-dime-where-potted-plants-come-from/
Note: Alderman Kevin Lower and former Alderman Judy Stearns have NEVER been listed as a participant in one of these “business lunches”.
Why do Council meetings sound like Myna birds talking to each other? Why are the talking points always the same? Why do the “business lunch” aldermen sound like their minds are made up BEFORE a meeting? Is Renner violating the law by only meeting with “his” aldermen? Are these “business lunches” at taxpayer expense illegal, or at least unethical? Do Renner, Hales, and the aldermen pay taxes on their additional compensation?
Last Monday, Tari admitted during the Committee of the Whole meeting why these business lunches take place. Alderman Fruin wanted to discuss plans for downtown in Executive Session (Secret Meeting), highly illegal. Renner chimed in with that fact, but then he let a meeting “2 on 1” comment slip: “Business lunch”. Start watching the video at 2:20:00
.
.
I know when I was on a school board we floated the idea of all of us meeting for breakfast but we never did. The superintendent or someone said it could have been considered a business meeting where a quorum existed.
I don’t know what the penalties are for violating the OMA law.
When I was also on the board we had to start recording the meeting and executive session. We had someone taking minutes and I think she quit doing that about that time. We had two choices audio and video record or just audio. I believe this was a result of someone bringing a court case against a school district that didn’t discuss what was on the executive meeting agenda.
It’s not illegal to discuss what happens in Executive Session outside of it. Government just wants it’s people to think it is. It would violate the OMA to have a majority meeting privately. That’s why these business lunches are just a couple of people, Renner indoctrinates some – Hales gets some others.
I do agree that the business lunches are inappropriate on many levels. There are also e-mail discussions and phone calls. “Consensus” is reached before Monday evening. (What is reached is not true consensus, though, but rather majority.) The LACK of serious discussion at the Council meetings makes that evident. Sometimes, ordinances and resolutions that were part of the packet released on Friday were “pre-dated” as being passed on Monday.
Could “2 on 1” be politico-babble for something else? For example, is it an open and closed session on the same date like they did in May with the $8M Front & Center proposal?
Considering the topic was discussing how to proceed, I doubt it. They have nothing currently on the table that qualifies for Executive Session.
There is no doubt in my mind there was an attempt to circumvent the OMA. Furthermore, Renner’s own utterance, and the past practice of actually doing it, might be considered not only a OMA violation , but also a Ethics Violation since the City Ordinance requires that all City public Officials and employees comply with the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act under Chapter 2 : Section 8B of the City Code. Since Renner and Hales also entertain non city public officials but also members of their political party, they could be violating state law by spending tax dollars on their political events, or seeking support for their political agenda. Civil and Criminal penalties exist for violations of the above.
Additionally, during the Paradigm debacle, Renner and former Alderman Robert Fazzinni should of been held accountable for violating City Ordinance: Chapter 2 : Section 8 : Officers Not to be Interested in Contract which states: “No municipal officer shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract, work or business of the municipality, or in the sale of any article whenever the expense, price or consideration of the contract, work or business, or sale is paid either from the treasury or by any assessment levied by any statute or ordinance. No municipal office shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in the purchase of any property which belongs to the municipality, or is sold for taxes or assessments, or is sold by virtue of legal process in the suit of the municipality”. Yet again, another Ethics violation.
When is there going to be rule of law in this city?
Not until we find a prosecutor!
I wonder if the Governor could appoint a Special Prosecutor or if the State Ethics Commission would have jurisdiction since the city voluntarily complies with the state Ethics Act. If not, we could seek injunctive relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. How about it people?