By: Diane Benjamin

If you still don’t understand laws in Bloomington only apply to citizen peons, this story should convince you.

Follow-up to this story: https://blnnews.com/2025/09/13/strike-3-bloomington/

After the Planning Commission postponed hearing the case for allowing a homeless shelter in a single family neighborhood, staff hung around to answer questions and hear comments from the people who attended and planned to testify.

Hum. . . .

Staff hung around to hear from citizens who planned to testify. If this the equivalent of bypassing an actual meeting where participants are under oath? Did City staff take testimony from those opposed where only staff heard comments.

I suspected at least one Planning Commission member had a problem with this. None of them stayed to listen. I FOID’d email exchanges between:

Kelly Pfiefer, Jeff Jergens, Chris Spanos, George Boyle, Alissa Pemberton and all members of the Planning Commission.

Turns out only member, Jackie Beyer, questioned this process. The other commission members didn’t see a problem? Jackie also asked for a copy of the audio. Why aren’t recordings posted online since no video is available? I also FOIA’d the audio, it is in the above linked story.

Since the first batch of emails had little of what I was looking for and a knew I didn’t receive all communication, I sent an email to City Manager Jeff Jurgens and City lawyer Chris Spanos.

Surprise! Chris Spanos found more emails that should have been included in the first FOIA and sent them to me. (Thanks for the PROMPT response Chris)

What this proves is the City of Bloomington can not be relied on to comply with FOIA Law and produce all applicable documents. If staff wants to hide something you might never know. Of course that violates the Freedom of Information Act law: https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=85&ChapterID=2

I have no reason to believe the staff who violated FOIA law has faced any consequences. Bloomington fails to realize not enforcing laws for staff and elected officials leads to more laws being broken. Consequences are the only way to prevent future violations. With none, future violations will accelerate.

Below are some of the emails not included initially. The long email below would have been un-readable if I had taken a picture or it. I converted all of these so I could copy the text.

• From: Jackie Beyer <redacted>
• Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:00 AM
• To: Alissa Pemberton <apemberton@cityblm.org>
• Cc: Kelly Pfeifer <kpfeifer@cityblm.org>
• Subject: Requests
• ​
• Good morning,
• Can you please send me a link to the audio from yesterdays meeting? Also, can I please get a copy of all the comments/questions/information that you collected from the audience members after the meeting regarding the rezoning case that was postposed?
• ​
• Thank you!
• Jackie Beyer

---

• Hi Jackie,
• ​
• I will provide a link to the audio as soon as we have it uploaded.
• ​
• I am not able to provide you the comments/questions and/or contact information for the people who stayed to speak with staff. As a Commission Member who will be hearing (judging) the case that information is related to, your contact with potential parties and their information should be limited to the public hearings that are associated with the case.
• ​
• Receiving input and/or discussing the case outside of that arena is what is called “ex parte Communication.” The definition below is from AI, but I feel it is a reasonable definition, with relevance. Cc’ing @George Boyle in case he has a different interpretation/definition he prefers.
• ​
• Ex parte communication with a land use commission is a private, one-sided conversation or submission to a commission member or staff about a case before they are making a decision, without notice to other parties involved. It undermines due process by violating fair play and preventing all parties from having an equal opportunity to present their arguments, and is generally prohibited because commission decisions must be based on evidence and arguments presented at public hearings.
• ​
• Let me know if you would like to discuss further. I will send you a link for the audio today.
• ​
• Alissa Pemberton
• Planning Manager

---

From:Jackie Beyer <redacted>

Sent: 09/04/2025 11:17:38 AM

To:Alissa Pemberton

Cc:Kelly Pfeifer; George Boyle

Subject:Re: Requests

This is what is fuzzy for me. Hopefully, George can weigh in.

In June, you had told me that ex parte communications do not apply to communications with staff, but this definition seems to conflict with that. So over these past 3+ years on the Commission, every time I reached out to staff with questions about a case and staff responded with a phone call rather than telling me to ask my questions during the hearing, the city has been acting illegally? I was never told that, otherwise I would never have reached out. Maybe the definition of ex parte needs to come from a city attorney and not AI.

The information from the public is information that Staff and the Commission collectively would have heard for the first time, at the same time last night, had the public hearing taken place. Prior to any other case heard before the Planning Commission, does staff reach out to those on the notification list and gather comments and questions? Does the notice that is mailed out include staff information for them to call you with any questions or concerns about the case? Maybe I misunderstand the process for staff gathering information from the public outside the hearing, prior to the hearing.

Regarding this being a situation of ex parte communication, if communications with staff do not fall under ex parte, I would be receiving the information from staff. I am not communicating directly with either party, nor will I. The purpose of the contact information is to put things in context of their question or concern. During public hearings, people usually share where they live to demonstrate proximity to a property and put context around the impact. The Staff has already posted and shared its findings of fact. Why is the Commission not privy to these additional findings of fact you received last night? Is this now precedence for staff to set up a hearing, and then request a postponement so they can collect additional information on a case to bias their presentation to the Commission?

Will Staff be sharing ALL that collected information with the Commission at our meeting on the October 1st? Or will it be filtered? Has staff told every member of the public last night to return on October 1st so the Commission can also hear their comments? In my opinion, it seems like the city has undermined due process on this case.

Jackie

---

---

If you don’t see why I didn’t receive these emails in my initial FOIA request, read them again. Staff is either not trained in legal communications or they are attempting to deceive the public and Planning Commission by discovering objections to what will be on the agenda in advance of a hearing.

The October meeting was canceled.

The Sherman St property will likely be back at the Planning Commission in the future. All of the citizens who wanted to testify need to be vigilant.