Rochester, IL Settling Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Caused By Mayor Suerdieck’s Actions –

Sangamon, Co. (ECWd) –

The Village of Rochester is having a special meeting this evening.  While we have not been able to locate the public notice and agenda on their web site, we have obtained a copy of the agenda which can be viewed below or downloaded at this link.

Of interest to the taxpayers is the agenda item indicating the Village is going to settle a lawsuit against them which was brought because of the Mayor’s actions.

“RES 24-32 Ratifying a Settlement Agreement pertaining to Henry’s on Main, LLC v. Village of Rochester, et al., Central District of Illinois Case Number 2024-cv-3040, Authorizing Payment Related Thereto, and Other Actions in Connection Therewith.”

As we covered in this article, the court had some very harsh words about the Mayor’s conduct and we urge everyone to read the court’s opinion at this link to better understand the Mayor’s actions.

It appears the Mayor has realized, along with the rest of the village board, settling this case may be the best path, however the taxpayers are going to be on the hook for an estimated $175,000.00 settlement according to information we obtained yesterday.

In Denying the “absolute immunity” claim by the president and village:  ” . . Suerdieck’ s decision could also be interpreted as being motivated by personal considerations given that Plaintiff’s principal, Mark Clemens, evicted the prior license holder, Surdieck’ s son, from the applicant address one week before Suerdieck denied the application. While addressing the Village Board meeting eight days before Suerdieck’ s decision, Clemens alleged that the process was “corrupt from the beginning.” Suerdieck later described Clemens’ s statements as “disparaging,” “rotten,” and not very factual.” Four months later, Suerdieck testified at the hearing that Clemens lacked the character to have a liquor license. When the allegations are viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds Suerdieck’ s act of denying Plaintiff’s application for a liquor license is analogous to the assertion in Brunson that defendant harassed the plaintiff to drive him out of business for illegitimate purposes such as the mayor’s personal gain.“

While this case may be settled by the village and the plaintiff, we wonder, in light of the lack of absolute immunity for the mayor as indicated by the judge, does the board have the ability to take action against the Mayor to personally hold him accountable for his corrupt actions?

We will be live streaming the meeting this evening which is at 7 pm at the Rochester Community Center.