McHenry Co. (ECWd)
June 19th, 2019 Township meeting – Trustee Shea – “Action to appoint Darlene Lutzow as the temporary deputy supervisor has passed with a roll call vote 2 to 1.”
Anyone who watches the video of that meeting can clearly see two members voted yes, one voted no, and the action was declared passed. Kelly sat there and said nothing about the fact they just violated the Open Meetings Act as we outlined in this article about an hour after it happened. Trustee Chapman confirms the bonding requirements will be met the next day.
I filed a request for review with the Attorney General PAC office as the OMA outlines a 5 member board must have 3 votes to pass measures. In the meeting in question, they only had 2 votes affirming the action but still declared it passed.
What did James Kelly tell the AG PAC office when they recieved their notification of a review being conducted for the Boards action?
“In response to Request for Review — 2019 PAC 58642, the Algonquin Township did not appoint a deputy supervisor on June 19, 2019. There were only two affirmative votes in favor of the appointment.”
The video proves the action was taken and declared passed by the board. While we agree such an action should be void, history points to the courts or the PAC having to make that determination. In this case, the PAC should confirm the action taken was in violation of the Open Meetings Act.
We suspect since the board took action to “correct” their mistake the PAC will simply confirm the violation but claim there is no further action needed since they corrected the problem.
While we greatly appreciate public bodies that recognize a mistake and correct it, we do not appreciate an attorney for any public body telling the AG PAC office something that actual video proves is not correct.
The full response from Kelly was as follows:
Dear Ms. Bartelt:
In response to Request for Review — 2019 PAC 58642, the Algonquin Township did not appoint a deputy supervisor on June 19, 2019. There were only two affirmative votes in favor of the appointment. The Township Board held a meeting on June 22, 2019. See attached agenda. At the June 22, 2019 meeting the deputy township supervisor was appointed by an affirmative vote of the township board. All three trustees voted to approve the appointment. See attached minutes. The deputy township supervisor was sworn in on June 22, 2019, at the conclusion of the meeting.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Once again we call for the Township Board to take action to terminate James Kelly from representing them any further as it is clear the games he plays do nothing but add to his billable hours for no logical reason. We also urge the citizens to attend the Township Meetings and share their concerns with the board on this matter and any others.
All that needed to be done in this case was for a Township official to let the AG PAC office know that the action they took was a mistake and they corrected it. There was no need to have an attorney involved, let alone one that tells the PAC something that video proves wrong.
A copy of Kelly’s letter can be viewed below.Kelly claim of no appointment
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.
janniePosted at 07:41h, 07 August
How does that attorney continue to keep his job? He should be removed from the position. He either is sleeping at the meetings, don’t know the law and just does what he feels like unless someone catches him.
RogerPosted at 10:03h, 08 August
The township may be better off financially by hiring an attorney to advise their attorney.
Sage advice: Never hire someone based on their cardboard sign. Use a resume and verify their background and employment history.
jmkraftPosted at 10:11h, 08 August
I think the bigger problem is they go along with whatever he says. For examples, in FOIA requests, they should just give up the requested records, but instead, they let him go on a rogue mission to somehow subpoena our dropbox information to somehow try and prove we are no media. The subpoena got quashed, he filed another one, the second subpoena got quashed, he is still racking up the billable hours instead of providing the records we requested.