Update: Normal’s ILLEGAL Public Comment policy

I have been informed Stan Nord sent the two pics below to Pam Reece.  She responded with what the Town lawyer sent to the Attorney General in response to Karyn Smith Request for Review.  The Town claims they read the law – the Attorney General Open Meetings Act training is immaterial.  See the response here:  Town Response

This is more proof complying with the law isn’t a goal.  Interpreting law to limit rights is.  Kathleen Lorenz and Scott Preston need to be buried in emails demanding the policy is changed.  Let’s see how much they care about citizens, we know the others don’t.

By:  Diane Benjamin

This morning I received another batch of emails from the Town of Normal.  Right at the top are emails from Township Supervisor Sarah Grammer to Stan Nord and Karyn Smith.

The emails not only prove Normal’s Public Comment policy is illegal, it proves the Attorney General’s Public Access office is incompetent.

If you remember, Karyn was denied to the right to speak about the mural before the election.  She filed a complaint with Kwame Raoul’s office and is still waiting for a ruling.

Karyn doesn’t have to wait – the Attorney General has already ruled.  The below is from the on-line Open Meetings Act Training for elected officials.

This proves not allowing citizens to speak because something isn’t on the agenda is illegal.

Print these two pics and hand them to Chris Koos if your rights are denied in the future.  Karyn and Stan should demand a policy change immediately.  If the rest of the Council refuses to comply they need removed from office.

(nice job Sarah!)

Public Comment 1Public Comment 2

 

9 thoughts on “Update: Normal’s ILLEGAL Public Comment policy

  1. Maybe AG Raoul’s office did not respond because the decision had already been addressed or is he part of the Bring Chicago to McLean County Movement ?

    Like

      1. “City attorneys are there to represent them, not us.”
        And that’s how it should be. I’ll gladly complain as much as the next person about how council members should represent the citizens and don’t, but the town counsel (note the spelling) should represent the Town.
        Let’s say there is an incident involving the Town that results in one or more deaths. General public sentiment could easily be that any town employees involved be fired and the family receive a sizable settlement. But proper legal handling might indicate minimal fault, so no firings and a smaller or even no settlement would be appropriate. Representing the citizens could actually compound the injustice rather than properly address it.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s