|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
News
SA: Park board violated meetings law : News : Oswego Ledger-Sentinel : Hometown Newspaper for Oswego and Montgomery, IllinoisSA: Park board violated meetings law
| Agency agrees to release transcript; board president takes 'full responsibility'
| by Lyle R. Rolfe
| 5/31/2012
|
Kendall County State's Attorney Eric Weis has determined the Oswegoland Park District Board violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) when it met behind closed doors last December.
In a letter sent recently to Park Board President Bob Mattingly, Weis noted he had reviewed the minutes, a written transcript and listened to an audio recording of the private meeting released by the park district.
"A review of the materials submitted has led me to conclude that portions of the meeting conducted in executive session on December 28, 2011 did violate section two of the Open Meetings Act," Weis wrote, adding, "A review of the relevant transcript shows that a lengthy discussion regarding the conduct of board members was done in executive session in violation of section two of the Act."
Weis also noted the board's discussion did not involve the spending of any public funds, nor did it involve a topic that would require the board to take final action at some point in the future.
Weis concluded, "Based upon the Oswegoland Park District voluntarily agreeing to release and make available to the public a written transcript of the audio recording of the unauthorized portions of the executive session of December 28, 2011 meeting, and a lack of any prior history of the violations of the act, I do not believe that any further action is warranted. Upon the release of the transcript to the public at its next meeting, I will consider the matter to be closed."
The OMA requires the park board and all other local governing boards, committees and commissions to conduct their meetings in public. However, the OMA does allow governing boards to meet behind closed doors to discuss a very narrow range of topics. The OMA requires all boards to take final votes in public view.
Weis completed his investigation into the Dec. 28 meeting at the request of Len Wass, a park board member.
Wass said the question of the legality of the Dec. 28 meeting actually began at a special board meeting on Oct, 26, 2011 when he was asked by the board to present and explain the data and conclusions he made in his successful campaign for election to the park board earlier in the year.
"Instead of listening this board had a different agenda. It and its outside counsel carried out a protracted assault on my character and integrity, and certain actions that I have taken as a board member. I was told to 'join the team' (and) to stop writing about negative items I saw in the park district among other items. It was a clear attempt at intimidation," he said.
Wass said the board once again verbally assaulted him during the executive session held Dec. 28.
He said they asserted among other things that he should seek the board's permission before communicating with outside bodies and to only write positive things about the park district when reporting to constituents.
"It was another unpleasant attempt at intimidation," he said.
"At that executive session, the board devoted a huge portion of that session to basically castigating me for not seeking their permission to file charges with the disciplinary commission against the (Park District) attorney and that I needed their permission," he said.
Wass said at a later open meeting in February, he told the trustees he felt the previous actions were in violation of the OMA and indicated that he believes they were again attempting to intimidate him.
"They disagreed so I decided to present it to the state's attorney for his judgment on whether it was or was not a violation of the Open Meetings Act," Wass said.
Mattingly said the original reason for the closed session allowable.
"The reason we went into executive session was appropriate, but we strayed off the conversation and the state's attorney felt it was inappropriate. They said it wasn't a major deal.
"He (Wass), felt we were disagreeing with him too much in the sessions and that we were attacking him again. But we were just disagreeing with some of the things he was doing," Mattingly said.
"It's unfortunate. But, as president, I take full responsibility for allowing it to stray off course. I didn't realize we were breaking the Open Meetings Act in that regard because I thought everything we talked about dealt with what I thought were personnel issues, " he said.
"Hopefully we'll all learn from it and move on," he said.
Mattingly estimated the incident has cost the park district between $4,000 and $5,000 in legal fees.
Wass said the trustees agreed in last week's closed session and open session that they had received a letter from Weis and the district would publish the transcript.
He said the letter will not be posted on the district's website, but copies will be immediately available to anyone requesting one at the district office. The park district will not require individuals seeking a copy of the transcript to first file a Freedom of Information Act request, Wass added.
"It's a verbatim transcript of the illegal discussion and I can tell you it's pretty lengthy," he said.
"I'm satisfied with the agreement that was made with the State's Attorney and I'm very hopeful that all the parties have come to a better understanding of what is and isn't a violation of the Open Meetings Act," Wass said.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
