Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

April 12, 2024

Toledo – Public voice can be heard, but not their vote.

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On July 14, 2017

Cumberland Co. (ECWd) –

Toledo, the small rural community that is the County seat for Cumberland County. Yes, even in what many would consider a rural paradise just far enough away from city life, public officials appear to have no clue of what it means to represent the people.

As we reported before, only one board member had complied with the mandatory training, which is required to educate them on how to conduct business, such as allowing the public to speak during a public meeting.  We confirmed that prior to our involvement, the Mayor had refused to allow a citizen to speak, even though the law says otherwise.

The first meeting we attended we found them in violation of the law as they had not posted the meeting properly.  Their attorney, who rarely attends according to board members, terminated the meeting.  The following week we went back, as the agenda item for a public comment policy was up for adoption and it was concerning.

Although we were pleased to see they are “now” going to allow the public to speak, they have placed restrictions that we believe are inconsistent with our Constitutional rights as well as the Open Meetings act.  One, in particular, is the method of allowing a person to go beyond their 5-minute restriction.  Normal business requires a majority vote to pass, however, in this case, they now require a majority vote of the board “and” the confirming vote from the Mayor to let you speak beyond 5 minutes. That means even though a majority of the elected board wants to give you more time, the Mayor can stop their vote to do so by voting no.  That is wrong!

They also believe it’s OK to force you to sign up no later than 5 minutes before the meeting to speak. The problem with that restriction is a person that walks in the room 2-3 minutes before the meeting even begins is not allowed to speak under their rules.  I asked them if they would allow such a scenario to happen and with the advice of the attorney to the Mayor, silence was the answer. Even though the attorney has informed me the Village welcomes all individuals/organizations to their meeting, we believe such a welcome is disingenuous when the advice is to not respond to the public’s questions and/or concerns.

Probably the most concerning part of this now adopted policy is how it violates, in my opinion, our First Amendment right.  The policy states: “Persons addressing the Board of Trustees should not expect an answer at the conclusion of a person’s comments, nor shall they be allowed to question the President or the Board of Trustees.” 

Wrong Answer!

Every citizen has a constitutional right to question their Village President and the Board of Trustees.  It is beyond me what they felt they would accomplish with such a statement.  Clearly, such a position should be a red flag to the citizens of Toledo as your public officials believe you have no right to question them.

Silence was the answer to every question presented to them from the public during public comment.  I asked a question regarding the Clerk not being elected since we have never run into that situation before. They refused to respond during the meeting, but I was able to obtain the statute from the Attorney that permits a village of fewer than 5000 people to appoint their clerk instead of electing them.  The Village took away the voters choice to elect their clerk in a resolution adopted in 1984.

What may be of special interest in that statute (see section b), is the people’s ability to reverse the action by referendum.  As it stands now, the people have no vote for their Clerk, who we understand does not live in Toledo.  Under the elected process, they are required to be a citizen of the Village but such a requirement does not apply to an appointive office. I suspect there might be an interest in getting a question to the public to see if “they” have an interest in their public officials being elected by them, vs. appointed by a Mayor who feels it’s OK to ignore the public during meetings.

You can watch the video of the meeting below.  It is in two parts because of the break for closed session.

public comment resolution



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • John Smith
    Posted at 12:57h, 14 July

    Everybody loves Raymond, or is it Ramone?

    • John Smith
      Posted at 13:30h, 14 July

      except those who have had run ins with him in the past:


      • jmkraft
        Posted at 14:20h, 14 July

        I tried the link and it did not work, so I removed it. Provide one that works and it will be posted. thanks.

  • John Smith
    Posted at 13:04h, 14 July

    for people who advocate for public participation, it’s quite ironic that comments are moderated

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 13:42h, 14 July

      We “moderate” them to keep the spam and vulgar language out.
      And…we are not a public body.

  • G. Barraclough
    Posted at 13:15h, 14 July

    “Persons addressing the Board of Trustees should not expect an answer at the conclusion of a person’s comments, nor shall they be allowed to question the President or the Board of Trustees.” 

    Very simple long-term solution to this.

    During the next election season, the paying-attention, legally registered voters of Toledo should all adopt the following personal policy:

    “Any Toledo municipal candidate for election addressing any voter should not expect an answer at the conclusion of the candidate’s comments, nor shall the candidate be allowed to question any voter”.

    As to the short term solution, I am confidant that the Edgar County Watchdogs, aka “…just a bunch of hayseeds from Southern Illinois who are not lawyers…” will have a bit more to say about these shenanigans.

    And by the way, boys and girls of the Toledo city council; Toledo, if incorporated, is a political subdivision of, and created by, the People of the State of Illinois represented in the General Assembly. The General Assembly has already defined the word meeting (see below).

    Any other words added to, detracted from, rearranged by or promulgated by anyone, other than the verbatim words contained in the state statute are repugnant to and in violation of Illinois statutes and have no effect of law.

        (5 ILCS 120/1.02) (from Ch. 102, par. 41.02)
        Sec. 1.02. For the purposes of this Act:
        “Meeting” means any gathering, whether in person or by video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means (such as, without limitation, electronic mail, electronic chat, and instant messaging), or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication, of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business or, for a 5-member public body, a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business.
        Accordingly, for a 5-member public body, 3 members of the body constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of 3 members is necessary to adopt any motion, resolution, or ordinance, unless a greater number is otherwise required.

  • Mike
    Posted at 14:15h, 14 July

    The you can’t question the President or Board bit is hopefully illegal.
    My understanding is the public can question the elected leader and board during a public meeting, but they don’t have to respond.
    It’s a public comment not a public dialogue.

  • John Smith
    Posted at 23:42h, 14 July

    how did ray Hamilton ever get hired in the first place? that is the question for John E SAINT John

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 09:32h, 15 July

      What does the comments about a cop during the meeting have to do with this article?

  • John Smith
    Posted at 09:22h, 15 July


    • jmkraft
      Posted at 12:11h, 15 July

      “John Smith” – if you are going to continue trashing someone by name, please act like a grown-up and use your real name.

  • Warren J. Le Fever
    Posted at 09:25h, 15 July

    After reading this article, I consider this example and many like them in the past proof positive justifying the activities of the Edgar County Watchdogs. As an elected official in the city of the county seat just east and next to Cumberland County, I would think those officials in Cumberland County would have heard enough going on in Clark County to know that if you aren’t going to follow proper legal procedure, you will get fame you don’t want. (including items about your errors in Disclosure News like happened in Clark County) First of all, I suggest all members of the Toledo read the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Secondly, the IIlinois Municipal League has some very good handbooks on procedure that every councilman should have. These are great reference books on what to do. It appears now that the City of Toledo will get a regular dose of Watchdogs and deservingly so. Playing games with public comment only gets you notorious and people in Toledo deserve better.

  • Warren J. Le Fever
    Posted at 09:02h, 18 July

    I happen to know a person in Marshall who takes the Toledo Democrat. After reading their reporting, I must say that Toledo has a newspaper that reports what actually happens in detail (which is what they are supposed to do) and not take sides and bias things and become an attack document. We have that problem in Clark County. If the local newspaper over here would do as the Toledo Democrat, the entire county would benefit immensely.