DuPage County » feature » Lisle

Lisle Village Board Violates Law On Camera –

January 17, 2017   ·   2 Comments

image_pdfimage_print

LISLE, IL. (ECWd) –

One of the issues concerning Mayor Broda and the Village of Lisle is a Binding Opinion from the Illinois Attorney General that the village had violated the Open Meetings Act during a closed session in its June 6, 2016, meeting.

This Binding Opinion was issued on September 26, 2016, and the village had 35 days from the date of the opinion to decide whether to comply and release the audio or to seek judicial review and ask the Circuit Court to overturn the Binding Opinion.

During the October 3, 2016, Village Board meeting, the board took action after an executive session to direct the village attorney to seek judicial review of the Binding Opinion.

This action was not listed as an agenda item on the published agenda and therefore could not have had any action taken on it. Taking action on items not listed on the agenda is a crime and subjects all those voting on the motion to being charged with a Class C Misdemeanor as the Open Meetings Act states in Section 4.

According to the Minutes from October 3, 2016 (last page), there was a Motion, Second, and a vote. This was not on the agenda and could not have been voted on.

So in order to keep from complying with the AG’s Binding Opinion on a previous illegal meeting, the Village violates the law again, in order to seek judicial review of a previous violation of the law. We think this is nothing more than an attempt at keeping from releasing the offending audio until after the April 4, 2017, election.

We urge a responsible person to take this information to the DuPage County State’s Attorney and ask for prosecution of this “alleged” crime committed by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Lisle, much like was done with the College of DuPage.  The evidence is all there and would be an easy case to win.

Lisle Watchdogs Video of the vote (volume is real low):


.
Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
[wp_eStore_donate id=1]

By

Readers Comments (2)

  1. Dennis Finegan says:

    I guess I’m confused. The 10/3 agenda states: Executive Session: A. Probable or imminent litigation.

    While not very specific, that is what was discussed, based on the motion that came out of the closed session. Just how specific does the agenda have to be?

     Reply
    • jmkraft says:

      The agenda was just fine for them to go into closed session. The problem is they voted/took action (to challenge the AG Opinion in court) on an item that was not on the agenda after the closed session was over.

       Reply




Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.