Kane Co. (ECWd) -
We covered Part I of this series in this article and encourage everyone read it to grasp the full impact of the events taking place at U46, the state's second-largest school and carrying a debt of over half a billion dollars, first exposed in this article.
The Board Secretary, who is the LAWYER for the board, in violation of the School Code as he is not an elected board member, and the one the Public Access Office listened to and took at his word in our request for review, now claims the PAC office has essentially given them an “A” in how they deal with the Open Meetings Act.
“Essentially they gave us an “A” on how well we follow the Open Meetings Act”
See his comments at the 37:28-minute mark of the video.
Is that a true representation of the facts?
We think not and here is why. The Following are points of instruction given to U46 regarding the request for review.
- However, we caution the Board to ensure that all agendas are posted at its
principal office as required by section 2. 02( a) ofOMA in the future;
I wonder why the PAC would advise them to ensure all agendas are posted at its principal office as required by the law? Is it because they KNOW they did not post them as we pointed out? Giving such advice clearly points to a recognition that there was a problem.
- the creation of a single agenda for regular Board meetings should assist in ensuring compliance.
The creation of a single agenda is exactly what we described as the solution to the violations that took place with their two agendas listing two different start times. If the PAC agreed two agendas were OK for one meeting then why make such a comment? The PAC failed to address the two agenda issue for one meeting in their response found below, however, they did dug a hole for themselves when I spoke with them on the phone.
Q: How do you get around the fact the law states, as pointed out in your decision, "an" agenda for each regular meeting shall be posted?
A: There is no prohibition in the law against two agendas.
My response to such a comment was to point right back to Dillon's rule and a question: Where in the law does it give a public body the power to have two agendas for one meeting? The PAC did not want to discuss that matter. They also did not want to address the fact the law says "an" agenda, which is singular, as in ONE agenda for each meeting. The fact the PAC pointed to a single agenda being something that would assist in ensuring compliance points to serious concerns about the PAC's ability to truly apply the law. Why suggest a single agenda will assist in compliance when you rule it was OK to have two agendas? The fact is, the law is clear and it instructs "an" agenda for regular meetings. Anything else is an abomination to our laws and their simple application to well grounded judicial principals of statutory construction.
Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.