Transparent? Illegal? All of the Above?

By:  Diane Benjamin

When the new and re-elected members of the City Council were sworn it last May 1st, no agenda was posted:

If you watch the video, Tari called the meeting to order anyway, see it here:

This is the meeting where an illegal oath of office was given.  Now that the City knows the oath was illegal, new oaths of office must be administered by the council meets on Monday.

The original oath of office was a public affair complete with a reception.  The new oaths of office are not listed on the agenda for either of Monday’s meetings.  There is a Liquor Commission meeting – most likely posted in error since that committee has its own site:

The media knows because they have read the stories. They know the city screwed up, but don’t expect them to report.

Is the city covering  up their mistake by doing new oaths in private?

Will the media look even more ridiculous for not reporting it?

Another thing:

The City has still not released the financial statements from last 4/30/2017.

You aren’t entitled to any data!

Tari needs to return his transparency award because the City DID submit the statements to the Illinois Comptroller’s office (as required) on October 31, 2017.

They could have been released when the statement were still somewhat relevant.

Never fear though, the comptroller’s office will be posting the statements on their site probably before Bloomington let’s you see them.

The Comptroller’s site is much easier to read anyway!

Transparent is a word Tari should never use again.  FOIA requests aren’t answered, and now financial statements are purposely withheld from the public.





12 thoughts on “Transparent? Illegal? All of the Above?

  1. Of course this will call for yet ANOTHER $300 light snack @ some food trough.
    Will they acknowledge Diane for catching THEIR flub?

  2. Soooooo, is everything the Council voted on since they did the wrong oath, now have to be redone since it was not voted on by legal Councilmen?

  3. I don’t think it was a mistake because the Oath of Office. in the State Constitution never reflected the words that these people uttered or affixed their signatures too in the affirmation documents they signed and have on file with City Clerk. The City Attorney is lying when he says they used old paper stock by mistake for the documents they signed. Why would they have a OLD DOCUMENT reflecting langauge that never existed in the State Constitution? Then there is the oral oath, no one noticed it was missing some key phrases? Nope, this was deliberately done. Im sure it could be urged that they don’t officially hold their office because of they failed to take the oath as required under the law, and that could effect every decision they made, or at the very least it could be challenged in court. Any swearing in should be done in a public forum.

    Every media source in this city was notified and only Cities 92.9 covered this story. WGLT will never cover this story if reflects badly on the Mayor, they are unfair and unbalanced in their reporting. Howie Packowitz, the head reporter over at WJBC, should never act indignant again when I say that that the WJBC is the propaganda arm of Mayor Renner and the City Council. Not one word from your station Howie, stick to reporting about the lower hanging fruit. The Pantagraph isn’t worthy of any further font on this subject.

    Kudos to Diane for finding this, and maybe if enough people start voicing their displeasure to the States Attorneys Office-Civil Division ( I have already contacted them) perhaps something will done about this.

    1. Not sure it was deliberately done. With the amount of times this council broke the law my guess is someone never checked to make sure the oath was legal as worded. Ignorance seems a more plausible explanation because to to do something deliberately would mean someone in this government actually took the time to think something through and carefully. I will allow that I have been proven wrong before.

  4. Did you review the Open Meetings Act? Pretty sure this is not a “meeting” as defined by the act and as such does not need to be posted. There was no business discussed. But hey, you’re the reporter reporting the news no one else reports. What do I know?

      1. I’ll ask again: Did you read the OMA? There’s YOUR definition of a meeting. And the state statute definition.

Leave a Reply