DuPage County – Bob Berlin Call to Action

DuPage Co. (ECWd) –

As outlined in two separate articles, here, and here, it is evident that an Open Meetings Act (OMA) violation has taken place under the Chairmanship of Erin Birt.

The OMA specifically provides the DuPage County State’s Attorney the power to prosecute under the following stipulation.

5 ILCS 120/3) (from Ch. 102, par. 43)
Sec. 3. (a) Where the provisions of this Act are not complied with, or where there is probable cause to believe that the provisions of this Act will not be complied with, any person, including the State’s Attorney of the county in which such noncompliance may occur, may bring a civil action in the circuit court for the judicial circuit in which the alleged noncompliance has occurred or is about to occur, or in which the affected public body has its principal office, prior to or within 60 days of the meeting alleged to be in violation of this Act or, if facts concerning the meeting are not discovered within the 60-day period, within 60 days of the discovery of a violation by the State’s Attorney.

We are asking the State’s Attorney’s office to investigate this matter as an OMA complaint that will have substantial impact as it relates to the issues at COD.

Below is a draft request for prosecution against COD for an OMA violation.  I encourage everyone to cut and paste the information and email it to the DuPage County State’s Attorney’s office at [email protected].

DO NOT call the State’s Attorney’s office to file this complaint! 

Calling their office overwhelms the receptionists and only creates tension in the office which does not help effectuate change in our local government.  Simply e-mail the request for prosecution to the email address above and make sure you copy it to someone you trust.

Dupage County State’s Attorney Bob Berlin
503 N County Farm Rd
Wheaton, IL 60187

January 11, 2016

Subject: OMA Violation by College of DuPage

Dear, Mr. Berlin,
It has become evident that the College of Dupage appears to have violated the Open Meetings Act by taking action in a closed session portion of a public meeting on March 6th, 2014.

The reasons for this belief is as follows.

A federal Court filing by Dr. Robert Breuder’s attorney makes two claims that state as follows: 1. “On March 7, 2014, Dr. Breuder was informed by then-Chairman Erin Birt that the majority of the Board had approved the extension of his Employment Contract to June 30, 2019”, and 2. In or around March 7, 2014, the majority of the Board approved an extension of the Employment Contract to June 30, 2019.

A review of meeting agendas as much as 4 months prior to that date do not have a single agenda that outlines any extension of Breuder’s contract as an action item or even a discussion. The minutes for the March 6th, 2014 meeting, believed to be the date of which a vote was taken, also has no mention of any action items on the agenda, however the minutes do confirm a closed session was held for personnel. The reason I believe that is the date such a vote took place is because of the statement in the Breuder federal filing, “In or around March 7, 2014, the majority of the Board approved an extension of the Employment Contract to June 30, 2019.”

Approximately one month later, Breuder’s attorney enters into negotiations with the COD attorney and Erin Birt regarding Breuder’s early separation. That can be confirmed by reading the emails at this link. https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Binder1-1.pdf

The timeline outlined in the Federal filing by Breuder and the now public e-mail exchange between Breuder and his attorney indicates something took place regarding Breuder’s contract and considering there is no reference of any open and public action in any of the minutes or available video the clear indication is that this action took place during a closed session.

I am asking that your office request a copy of the closed session recording and minutes for your review and if it is determined that action was taken you prosecute under the powers provided to you by law, specifically the Open Meetings Act. Please note, if the action taken was in relation to Breuder’s section F contract matters, as you noted in your previous letter, deciding to take no action on that section is in fact action.

If you have any questions or need any further information please let me know.

Thanks

Mr. XXXX
Address

Please consider a donation.
[wp_eStore_donate id=1]