DuPage Co. (ECWd) –
As promised, Part II of the McGuire meltdown in her letter to HLC, but please read Part 1 first (Part III here).
- “At absolutely no point was Vice Chair Mazzochi willing to consider supporting one of our agendas”
Untrue, as Mazzochi published five agendas that contained the items McGuire wanted, and two of them were even identical agendas created by McGuire (the January 14 and February 3, 5:30 pm agenda). McGuire at every turn refused to participate or give her own Board members the courtesy of a start-time when they all could be present to participate.
- “we allowed for the process to play out with an appointment by the Chair of the ICCB, Dr. Lopez.”
Allowed for the process to play out??? Are you kidding? Trustee McGuire refused to show up to ANY scheduled Board meeting that would have obligated her to discuss the 7th Trustee; demanded that Dr. Lopez make the appointment; and the minute Dr. Lopez wisely stood on the side of reform, complained about his choice. Which, we suppose, goes to show there is no point trying to use logic on crazy. In any event, Ms. McGuire fails to understand that given her refusal to do her duty, and participate in the process during the 60-day period allocated to the Board, she abdicated her power so that there was no other process possible. Her antics denied the Board their procedural rights to self-select the 7th Trustee.
She also states,
- “I spent 11 hours reviewing those invoices and discovered one invoice in particular dealing with the [XXXX-REDACTED – ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE -XXXX]”
Woe-Nelly! She admits to reviewing legal invoices (remember that) and has now tried to break attorney-client privilege (and violated Board policy while doing so, which clearly requires a request to the Board and then a vote before disclosing anything) by telling the HLC about 1 invoice she found something on in her 11-hour review.
- “the balance of power was restored once again to the Clean Slate”
Again, she is totally focused on power and control. Who cares who is in charge provided the result is improving the operation for all the stakeholders? Sadly, McGuire will not be happy about anything she is not in charge of (though given her highly charged emotional state, we wonder if she was granted power would she be like the proverbial dog who chases cars, and then wonders what the hell to do once she bites a bumper—not have a clue what to productively further do).
- “allowing for trustees to impose restrictions on the viewing of legal documents by other trustees.”
There are no restrictions on the “viewing” of legal documents, only the ability to copy them, share them, and steal them. Given that Trustee McGuire previously directed copies of the legal bills she got in September towards the press; then removed copies of the bills from the College in December; and just improperly disclosed privileged information to the HLC in May, it is hardly surprising that the woman has to be saved from herself. Ultimately, she has full access to them with an issued password. Her problem, which she calls a restriction, is based on the fact she can’t copy them and walk out the door and share them with anyone.
- “I have attempted numerous times to view these documents, which are displayed two to a screen, all to no avail.”
First she spent 11 hours reviewing legal invoices. Now she implies viewing them, two to a screen, is really just too much for her.
- “There are error messages, password problems, difficulty turning the pages on the screen so they are readable.”
How do you have a problem turning pages of a .pdf file on the screen when you insinuated you “attempted” to view them all to no avail, meaning you could not view them? Need a hint Ms. McGuire? Click “view” then Click “rotate clockwise or counterclockwise” accordingly. Her complaint of turning pages is laughable at best. I can’t count the number of FOIA’d records from COD that we had to turn in order to read them. The law does not allow us to complain about a record that has to be turned, nor should the HLC or anyone else for that matter, give McGuire any sympathy for a few key strokes she may have to exercise in the performance of her duty—which seems to be artificially inflating COD’s actual legal expenses as part of her efforts to assist Michelle Moore and her patron Dan Cronin in attacking Tim Elliott in the County Board race.
- “In a recent closed session, Vice Chair Mazzochi indicated that with regard to the [XXXX-REDACTED – ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE -XXXX]“
Again, McGuire just proved exactly why she can’t be trusted with attorney-client privilege material. She continues to expose sensitive information that may subject COD to possible additional legal expenditures.
- “Photos have been taken of my papers on the table at board meetings by Trustee Napolitano.”
That is a lie! I spoke with Trustee Napolitano and the only picture he has ever taken of anything on the table at a board meeting was a magazine McGuire had shown him as he wanted to remember the name of it. If she is referring to this one we published and discussed here, we can assure Trustee McGuire it did not come from Trustee Napolitano. And, Trustee McGuire is only upset about the e-mail photo because it shows she was taking orders to do exactly as former COD Trustee Kory Atkinson told her to in the e-mail, holding up a copy of the Daily Herald at that night’s Board meeting, and criticizing the reformers. If she means something else, we challenge her to provide evidence to support her claim. If she can produce it, we will publish it!
- “two private conversations with Trustee Napolitano were made public to the press at a board meeting”
Yes, the conversations were made public at a board meeting but strictly in the form of refuting McGuire’s first claim to the Daily Herald that she has not ever had a phone conversation with Napolitano. After Napolitano produced phone records to disprove her claim she clearly was embarrassed as she was caught in another lie. Now those conversations that she first said she did not have, have morphed into two conversations she now admits she had, but just deemed “private.” Sorry, in our world a “private” conversation is still one that exists. Is this her way of avoiding transparency, by having “private” conversations with other board members?
Click here for Part III
Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.