AG Issues Binding Opinion: Dolton Must Quit Blocking Handicap Parking; Have Open, Accessible Meetings –

Dolton, Ill. (ECWd) –

The Attorney General’s Public Access Bureau has issued a rare Binding Opinion, #24-010, directing the Village of Dolton to “take immediate and appropriate action to comply with this opinion by taking measures to make all future meetings convenient and open to the public, including holding meetings at a location with enough space to be reasonably accessible and configuring the meeting set-up to accommodate the public. Although the Board is permitted to take reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure the safety of members of the public and public officials, it is directed to refrain from unnecessary security measures such as street closures, parking barricades, and an excessive police presence that physically impedes members of the public from reaching Village Hall and/or creates a hostile atmosphere that may deter the public from attending meetings.”

The events leading up to this opinion read like a crazed Mayor hell-bent on violating every norm of public office, including restricting the public’s right to attend meetings.

From blocking off the entire village parking lot, blocking off all streets around village hall forcing handicapped and elderly to walk two blocks to the meeting, blocking handicap parking, holding meetings in a small room while knowing large numbers of residents would attempt to attend the meetings, excessive police presence, to locking trustees out of the building, etc.

There was no threat to Mayor Henyard:  “The Board argued, in Chief Lacey’s letter, that heightened security concerns justified such extensive restrictions. This assertion is unpersuasive. Although prior Board meetings had been contentious due to the division within the Board and public displeasure with the allegations of misconduct against Village officials, the letter mailed from Rhode Island was the only evidence that the Board provided in support of the manner in which it conducted the meetings in question. The letter was critical and insulting, but it did not implicitly or explicitly threaten violence. More importantly, the letter did not arrive until after the two meetings occurred.”