By: Diane Benjamin
Don’t miss the update: http://blnnews.com/2015/11/04/more-on-the-illegal-meeting/
Today an illegal meeting was held at City Hall. David Hales has divided the Council into groups of three to meet on various issues. Instead of being open and transparent by discussing City business at City Council meetings, they are meeting with no public notification as required by law. Today’s meeting was on implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Attendees included Aldermen Black, Lower, Mwilambwe, and City Manager David Hales. Other meetings are scheduled for the other Aldermen, or course they aren’t on the City calendar because the public is not supposed to know or attend. Several other citizens and I walked into the meeting today, we were told it was a “staff” meeting. Hales was the only “staff” present.
I contacted the Attorney General’s office for a definitive answer on how many Aldermen meeting together constitutes a violation of the law. The City has always claimed it’s 4, the Aldermen present probably believed what they were told. I received this response:
______________________________________________________________
- <[email protected]>
- Today at 5:09 PM
Dear Ms. Benjamin,
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “quorum” as: “The smallest number of people who must be present at a meeting so that official decisions can be made; specif., the minimum number of members (a majority of all the members, unless otherwise specified in the governing documents) who must be present for a deliberative assembly to legally transact business.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), available at Westlaw BLACKS. How a public body is incorporated and what its governing documents provide can affect what constitutes a quorum. You may wish to consult with the applicable public body and/or the State’s Attorney’s Office in the applicable county.
Very truly yours,
Redacted
Supervising Attorney, Public Access Bureau
312-814-8413
______________________________________________________________
In English, the smallest number of Aldermen that need to be present to conduct business is 5 (of 9). That means a majority of the quorum (3 of 5) present at any unannounced meeting violates the Open Meetings Act. The gentleman I spoke with said the State Attorney should be enforcing the law. I sent this email to Jason Chambers, local States Attorney:
- Bloomington Normal News <[email protected]>
- Today at 5:31 PM
The Mayor talked about “breaking into groups” at one of the Council meetings. I’m not going to review which one to see what he was referring to. I thought it was going to be at the retreat. Hales & the Mayor know exactly what they are trying to do. I’m sure they consulted with Mr. Jurgens. Were you told to leave?
So much for the BS about the Comprehensive Plan being a roadmap to be implemented over time as finances allow and circumstances change.
We weren’t kicked out.
Did you stay and listen?
Long enough to hear the three-some committee assignments. Hales was giving edicts
Diane,
You are one awesome lady! I’ve been swamped at work here lately, but I want you to know how much I truly appreciate the time and effort you put into guarding the interests of the citizens of Bloomington. I just wish everyone could see how you put your heart and soul into seeing that the current infection in our city administration is brought into the light of day and not left to fester. I honestly shudder to think how far down we would be if not for you. By keeping everyone informed about the kind of low-down, devious tricks these dirtbags use, and letting the dirtbags know that you’re letting folks know what they’re doing, I know you’re at least slowing the chumps currently in control down from doing all that they want to do!!! THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! BTW, where can I contribute monetarily to the cause? I’d like to, at least, help out some with the expenses I know you’ve been incurring while you’ve been looking out for us… 👍 😉 👍
There is a contribute button on the main page or I’m in the phone book. Thanks
I’m not sure what anyone can legally do. There is no fine, jail time, etc. that I know of. Maybe a slap on the hands by the States Attorney’s office.
Now if they voted and made a decision and that harmed someone then I would think legal action could be taken.
It just appears more of a well we’ll just do this and so what if someone complains and what are they going to do about it.
When the local regime operates with the attitude of “let ’em sue us” then you know that they have become arrogant b*st*rds! That is the attitude of this city government with the exception of 1, maybe 2 council members.
You’re probably right. First who is going to spend the money to sue and second would be the difficulty finding a lawyer to take the case because they know there is no money to be made or claim to fame.
I knew someone who had an issue with the Illinois State Police. Legally the person was correct in their position and the ISP just ignored them. Even writing letters threatening to sue did no good. Contacting law firms was a lost cause. They have bigger fish to fry and more money to be made with other cases. Definitely a lawyers playing field to pick and choose what they will take as cases. Then again in this case some law firm wouldn’t take it because some day they may want to cut a deal with the ISP so why make them mad.
Finding a lawyer some place else, bigger city, another state, etc. costs you even more. They know you won’t do that unless maybe if you are billionaire so they just do what ever they want to do.
Regardless of how many make a quorum, the fact that they are breaking into groups to get around the Open Meetings Act , in my humble opinion, is unethical. Anyone else feel the same way?
See the new story I just posted.
The City’s current standard practice is unethical.