DuPage Co. (ECWd) –
Today the Daily Herald released what is being claimed to be closed session recordings from a College of DuPage Board of Trustees meeting.
What I find most interesting in this reporting is the complete failure to inform the public a crime was committed.
The only people who are to have access to the closed session meeting recordings and minutes are the board members, however, under the old system these records, according to COD sources, were stored in a safe in Breuder’s office under either his direct control or that of Maryanne Millush, Director, Legislative Relations.
One of the first actions by the new board was to correct that malfeasance by the past board and put those closed session recordings under the control of the Board.
Reading the statute it is clear the release of those records (to the public) is in violation of the Open Meetings Act.
(e) …”the verbatim record of a meeting closed to the public shall not be open for public inspection or subject to discovery in any administrative or judicial proceeding other than one brought to enforce this Act.”
(f) – “Minutes of meetings closed to the public shall be available only after the public body determines that it is no longer necessary to protect the public interest or the privacy of an individual by keeping them confidential.”
The board, in spite of the Daily Herald’s call for closed session recordings/minutes to be released, have not authorized such release for sound legal reasons. This release may well have created serious legal issues for COD in future litigation related to Breuder and may well cost the taxpayers even more.
The release was done without board authority, which is a crime. If we are ever going to fix the corruption in this state the media needs to report crimes when they are right in front of their face.
A criminal investigation should be launched regarding this matter because it is in fact a violation of the Open Meetings Act which clearly considers such action a crime.
(5 ILCS 120/4) (from Ch. 102, par. 44)
Sec. 4. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Act, except subsection (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Section 1.05, shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.
Edited executive session audio from the Daily Herald website:
COD_Exec-Audio
The most interesting parts of this recording are the comments from Dianne McGuire, who over the last several months has made accusation of the new majority “micro managing” the college.
Starting at the 39:00 mark of the video you can hear McGuire speak regarding her push for reforms. Reforms that in many ways mimic exactly what she is speaking against now with the new board. She put together 11 directives for the president effective immediately. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy of this woman. She clearly points to putting the BOARD in control, not the Administration. How convenient Ms. McGuire! This woman lists all kinds of reforms that rein in the out of control President and Administration, which is exactly what the clean slate is doing, yet she is now fighting them on every front.
At the 41:35 mark in the audio it reflects that McGuire admits she knew NOTHING about the Max McGraw membership. It was a surprise, even though she herself was approving impress payments for that very expenditure. This is a fine example of how irresponsible trustee McGuire is when it comes to over-site of the taxpayer’s money.
And for those that missed it, her entire dialog on her agenda and push for reforms is being discussed in closed session of which this is not a legal closed session discussion. So once again, McGuire ignores the law and does as she wants, the law be damned.
Former chairman Erin Birt also discussed matters that were not authorized in spite of acknowledging the need to sticking to closed session exceptions. At the 51:07 mark McGuire once again takes up an issue not authorized by any exemption. She discusses taking up the issue pertaining to the vote of no confidence, and Erin Birt engages in that conversation, thus another example of OMA being violated.
Former trustee Svoboda at the 52:20 mark references her desire to control the President. How interesting. Is that not what the old trustees have been attacking Hamilton for trying to do?
I stand by the Chicago Tribune and their call for McGuire, Birt and Wozniak to resign.
5 Responses
Thank you ECWD for what you do. Thank you for putting the audio up for us to listen to and draw our own opinion. There is a lot of things that were spoken about, based on what they were there for, that violate closed session. Who released this audio recording? Many many questions.
James you are clueless. I did not ARGUE the Daily Herald article. I pointed out what they failed to point out or chose not to. We put the entire audio up so people could hear it all, even though the paper edited it, which means we dont know what may have been edited out to support an agenda by them. We have NEVER been paid by any Tea Party so try again. This is not about tea party no matter how much you want it to be. You make an assumption that Hamilton communicates information to us however that is a false assumption with the exception getting communication in response to questions we have asked.
How much did the tea party pay you for arguing the Daily Herald article? It is amazing how one sided your website is. You are losing all of your credibility. And if you think the information that Hamilton communicates through board meetings or directly to you is 100% accurate.. you are dead wrong. She is as twisted as Breuder but with a little extra crazy. I’m sure soon it’ll all come out.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, nobody pays us anything to write what we write. Can you point to anything in specific that is factually incorrect in this article? Have you asked the Daily Herald how much the Dems (or maybe the RINO Carlin) paid them to run their article? Let’s face it, after listening to the audio, Hamilton did not call the severance “phenomenal”, she called Birt’s ability to essentially cut the original amount in half phenomenal. There is a difference.
How long has the Tea Party boogie man been after you James? And even if they did pay John and Kirk, why is exposing crime a bad thing?? I have always found that those who ridicule do so because they are unable to refute the facts. Its an attempt to distract from the real issue. I also find it pathetic to do so