COLLEGE OF DUPAGE (ECWd) -
Edited to include link to press release...
During the November 20, 2014 College of DuPage Board of Trustees meeting, Trustee McGuire took the time to spend 20 minutes preaching about the "Dangers of Political Apathy" while at the same time attacking people questioning expenditures of the College, telling them to stop criticizing and harassing the board.
Is that not the definition of political apathy? "The indifference of citizens with regard to their attitudes towards civic responsibility, politicians, and actions of public bodies"
She began by citing a quote of Martin Niemöller - “Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew”. Is she really equating citizens asking for accountability of the Board with the persecution of the Jews? It was offensive and disgusting for Trustee McGuire to stoop to using the memory of the persecution of the Jews to provide cover for the college’s questionable expenses. She owes the college and the supporting community an abject apology, along with tendering her immediate resignation. (This paragraph "stolen" from a comment on a previous article)
To quote from a 3d Appellate Court decision in PEOPLE EX REL. HOPF v. BARGER: "The people's access to information is the basis of public understanding of governmental decisions so that their elected representatives will be responsive to them and under their ultimate control."
I will work thru Trustee McGuire's comments as she makes them:
2:28 - McGuire: Those IMPREST accounts - absolutely nothing illegal - services do not have to be bid out per Illinois law.
-Does she not remember the ongoing criminal investigation eluded to in a past board meeting and in a press release? Payments for food and booze for the Senior Management Team, Dr. Breuder and the Board of Trustees? ILLEGAL!
(110 ILCS 805/3-27.1) for bidding requirements.
- For the meals of trustees:
110 ILCS 805/3-7 (e) Members of the board shall serve without compensation but shall be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses incurred in connection with their service as members. Compensation, for purposes of this Section, means any salary or other benefits not expressly authorized by this Act to be provided or paid to, for or on behalf of members of the board. Does the Act authorize receiving free dinners, drinks, and Christmas presents at the expense of the taxpayers? NO!
3:08 - McGuire: This account has operated continuously and flawlessly within the parameters of board policy
- Since when can board policy authorize criminal acts like purchases for board members, food and drinks for the SMT, Christmas presents of beef and ribs? Did board policy authorize the payments that were mentioned in their own press release?
3:45 - McGuire: talks about the board member meals before meetings being "helpful" to them
- SHALL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION! That includes meals. Does the Public Community Colleges Act "expressly authorize" those meals that were provided to the members of the board? NO! Another illegal expenditure that she admitted to.
- How are the meals "helpful"? Do you talk about public business during those meals? If so, they are illegal meetings that violate the Open Meetings Act and are in and of themselves a criminal act...and she just admitted to it.
4:16 - McGuire: attempts to downplay those illegal expenditures by saying they do not amount to much.
- Excuse me judge, but the bank had several million dollars in the vault, and I only stole $15,000, and since it was such a minor percentage of all the money they had it should not be considered a crime.
5:45 - McGuire: [Breuder] is the board's only employee...
- Wrong again, here is a list of the Statutory Board Employees:
(110 ILCS 805/3-26)
(from Ch. 122, par. 103-26)
(a) To make appointments and fix the salaries of a chief administrative officer, who shall be the executive officer of the board, other administrative personnel and all teachers.
The fact she didn't know her own statutory obligations is yet another reason she should resign and save the school, herself, and her family from further embarrassment.
6:36 - McGuire talks about "personal attacks" never being OK
- please review 1:20 in the video to hear McGuire's personal attacks against citizens--- "extremist" - "right-wing" - "idiologues" - "ilk" - "tea party" - "misinformation" and "outright lies" - all designed as personal attacks that she has no first hand knowledge of.
7:48 - McGuire at least tells some truth, that the $20 million email was an embarrassment to the college. She follows that up with more lies though...the preposterous assertion that we would create a need for the money is absolutely false.
- please read the truth in the email (here): "...not being able to say how we would use the state's money (perhaps no real need) could lesson our chances to break the money loose...In the attached press release you can see how I have to dance around how we would use the money..." Please, read the email and it will become very clear that they were creating a need for the money.
9:06 - McGuire talks about the "expense of this vendetta" and how the college has spent $100,000 on 50 FOIA requests...
- McGuire lied to the public again. There is absolutely no evidence of the cost she claimed (click here for proof). Additionally, the Freedom of Information Act calls it a primary duty to respond to FOIA requests.
10:14 - McGuire says that none of the accusations are validated
- Another lie. She refuses to read the statute she is required to follow. We know they are not prosecuted yet, but that could be for a variety of reasons: like the Assistant State's Attorney's wife being a member of the board, or ties between campaign managers and board/foundation members, or simply the fact that the board chooses not to demand prosecution of these criminal acts. It certainly does not mean the accusations are false.
A future article will concentrate on the numbers she is quoting after the 10:30 mark in the video since we do not have access to them at this time.
While watching this video, you must ask yourself this: Why is it OK to give 40 minutes in one meeting and 20 minutes in another meeting dedicated to damage control for the college, while at the same time restricting regular citizens to 3 minutes at a time.
If you remember nothing else from this article, remember this: Trustee McGuire tries to confuse the public by claiming the "attacks" are on the "College of DuPage" when they are not. They are on the board of trustees and the president for violations of the law, among other things.There is nothing wrong with the college as a whole, and I do not believe any of us think there is. The problem is with the board and what they are allowing to happen.