College of DuPage (ECWd) –
It is now more obvious than ever College of DuPage Trustee Diane McGuire has bought the Breuder line of “they shouldn’t be allowed to vote” – which shows just how mentally unstable they are becoming.
The latest Daily Herald article, “McGuire asks if COD on hook for damages in Breuder suit” quotes McGuire as wanting the AG to tell the majority of the board that they have to abstain from voting.
Part of Breuder’s frivolous lawsuit against the college and four of the trustees implied that since certain trustees may have certain beliefs and opinions, they should not be allowed to vote during board meetings. “Dr. Breuder further objected that if all Board trustees were permitted to vote on Dr. Breuder’s termination, the Board’s action would violate Dr. Breuder’s right to be heard by a fair and impartial tribunal.” (See page 29-30 of the law suite, paragraph 97)
“Despite the very clear bias of Defendants Hamilton, Mazzochi, Napolitano, and Bernstein, all Board trustees were permitted to vote on Dr. Breuder’s termination.” (See page 31 of the law suite, paragraph 104)
Is the attorney actually implying that elected officials lose their right to vote because of their opinion?
But doesn’t that work both ways? If, say, Diane McGuire, became so infatuated with Breuder in her attempts at making sure he still has “joy” in his work and that he never has “health issues” because of her questions, that she would never, ever, vote to terminate his employment, especially since the big-bad-tea-party-nazi-militia-with-lots-of-money voted him out, shouldn’t she have to abstain from voting because of her beliefs and thoughts? Oh, wait, this only works if it’s in her and Breuder’s favor. See how it works now?
Ridiculous and childish. We believe there will be no opinion provided for statutory reasons, but it would be nice to see a response to such a ridiculous question.
We can answer the question for her: NO! They do not have to abstain from voting, as nowhere in the Community College Act does it give you the power to abstain, as it does in other statutes such as the Municipal Code. They were elected to do a job, that job is to represent their constituents who voted for them based on what they campaigned on. There is no requirement for the board to vote to indemnify anyone, any indemnification is already written in Board Policy.
For a trustee that has had no problem with violations of Policy on investments, and then uses them to point to conflicts in policy and procedure, one can only wonder how she missed Policy 5-210. Had she read it, maybe she could have saved the AG’s office from wasting any time on her ridiculous which hunt.
Protection from Civil Suit
“The Board of Trustees will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless members of the Board of Trustees, administrators, employees, and agents against any and all suits, claims and demands for damages or requests for other relief arising from a deprivation of constitutional right, civil right, statutory right, negligent or wrongful acts resulting in death, bodily injury, or property damage while performing such duties as defined by state law or as authorized by the Board of Trustees and its agents. This Policy will be administered consistent with Section 3-29 of the Illinois Public Community College Act, 110 ILCS 805/3-29.” (see page 55 of Board Policy)
And how convenient, the policy points directly to the Community COllege act which also states, Sec. 3-29. To indemnify and protect board members, employees, and student teachers of boards against civil rights damage claims and suits, constitutional rights damage claims and suits, death, bodily injury and property damage claims and suits, including defense thereof, when damages are sought for alleged negligent or wrongful acts while such board member, employee or student teacher is engaged in the exercise or performance of any powers or duties of the board, or is acting within the scope of employment or under the direction of the community college board. (See state statute)
We believe her witch hunt is more of another self promotion and a way to get her picture in the paper and it is no surprise the Daily Herald was more than happy to publish such stupidity.
More interesting in this whole process is the fact that the Attorney General’s list of duties does not contain anything in which she is permitted to provide legal advice to local government bodies. Had the legislature intended for her office to answer opinion questions of local elected officials they would have written it into the law.
Case and point: Duties of the Attorney General shall be: “Eighth – To give written opinions, when requested by either branch of the general assembly, or any committee thereof, upon constitutional or legal questions.” (See section 4 of Attorney General statute)
College of Dupage is not a branch of the general assembly or any committee thereof, so what makes her think the AG is going to response is beyond us. What will be telling is if she actually gets a response with an opinion. That will create a quagmire for the AG’s office as they have refused to do so in many other cases citing the very duty pointed out above as why they can not provide such requested opinion.
To Diane McGuire:
The election is over, you are now the minority. Deal with it. Enjoy your remaining time as a trustee as clearly your days in public service are numbered.