Wesley Township (ECWd) –
The Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (“PAC”) issued a determination letter stating that during its July 26, 2018 Township Trustee meeting, Wesley Township violated Section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act when it voted to appoint “Candidate A” as Township Clerk without notifying the public of the name of the candidate prior to the vote.
The Motion presented for a vote, was to “appoint candidate A” without actually naming the person who was “candidate A.”
The Open Meetings Act requires, prior to any vote, that the public body provide sufficient information to t he public as to the action to be voted on. There is no person whose name is Candidate A.
It was not until after the vote when the Supervisor informed the public of the actual name of the person appointed.
In its determination letter, the PAC cited Allen v. Clark County Park District Board of Commissioners, 2016 IL App (4th) (2016) (yes, that was the decision our Appellate Court ruled unanimously in our favor over the Park District) where the Court stated that Section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act required a public body to provide enough information to the public, prior to any vote, of the action they are voting on. This does not mean a complete recital, but merely a recital of key points – in Wesley Township’s case, the name of the person they intended on voting in as Township Clerk.
[documentcloud url=”http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6190035-WESLEY-TWP-53766-O-2e-Pub-Recital-Improper-Mun.html” responsive=true]
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.
Sadie ReddPosted at 09:30h, 12 July
Rockford does not Rock, and we need help with Watchdog; I had an article written and sent it for distribution, and it was rough draft, but would love to understand the format; kindly let me know when your next class is so I can sign up to be an active participant and a hound dog too. I am more than furious what they are doing here. Talk about bias and underhanded when it comes to their “own,” is absurd, and so obvious, I allege it is like the little mobsters deals.There roof inspections are drive byes, and the constituents of Rockford not only get repercussions from this term; I have a $1000 court transcript to prove it. Asked why they call a 2.5 minute inspection an inspection, and ‘that is just what they call it.’ The other excuse, we have so many. Then call it what it is; “drive by.’ Then do not approve it the roof under code as you do not know. Anyone know of a good municipality Class Action Attorney, as my property taxes are being wasted; and roofing contractor fines are not being implemented; equals loss revenue
Susan LydayPosted at 10:51h, 12 July