Shelby Co. (ECWd) –
Regardless of the propaganda pushed on local social media, members of the past board understood the importance of reading and following the applicable laws. Some of those people learned that on their own, and others from actually listening to what we have said for years, which has had nothing to do with political activism or some hidden agenda as some have tried to claim. Our model is simple. Learn the law and follow it. However, that does not mean every single legal obligation is known to them. Many times, other elected officials ensure key things are complied with.
As an example, years ago we raised the issue of certain elected officials receiving certain benefits that were not included in their compensation setting resolution. While the board chair at the time failed to correct it, the new board chair did, but only after it was brought to them by the elected department heads with an emphasis that those benefits must be included in the next resolution. We did not write about it because there was an honest effort to fix what was broken and it was not the fault of those officials receiving those benefits. They recognized it needed to be fixed and took appropriate steps to do so. Anyone doubting this is free to FOIA the County Clerk for those communications with me, Kirk Alen.
The Shelby County Board’s agenda items for last night’s special meeting included the establishment of compensation-setting resolutions for 2 elected offices retroactive to December 1, 2024, as was covered in this article.
To our surprise and pleasure, neither agenda item was acted on. Chairman Tad Mayhall pointed to the statutory obligations indicating these resolutions needed to be done 180 days before the beginning term, which is what we pointed out in our article on this matter. He also confirmed that the obligation to adopt that resolution is a board duty and members of the current board were in fact on the board during the time when it should have been done. Rather than focusing on a blame game for it not being done, he stayed focused on the proper solution to the problem they are now faced with.
Even more exciting to see was the claim it was not fair to ask the State’s Attorney to give a snap opinion on the matter but rather allow some time for more research. We have said for years, and yes, even in Shelby County, it is not fair to any state’s attorney to be asked to provide an answer to a legal question during a meeting. History has shown that, more often than not, such decisions fail to have proper legal research and result in an opinion not grounded in law.
Another thing we have said for years, board members should not take any action on an item without knowing the answer to a very important question.
Where in the statute does it give us the power to take the action we are about to take?
That question appeared to be applied. The Chairman made it clear it would not be right to vote on the matter without more research to ensure they had all the appropriate information and authority on how to address the matter according to the statutes, case law, and AG opinions.
While we do not know who asked for the agenda item yet, had they done their research beforehand they would have realized such an agenda item is not consistent with the law.
The Watchdog Model, love us or hate us, is to get people to first and foremost pay attention to what is going on in their local government. Part of that process is to also learn the applicable laws and demand they follow them. Considering we have gone from past complaints from board member Carol Cole of, ‘all this talk of ILCS this and ILCS that’, to board members reading and citing state laws, it appears our model is working. This would include the fact many meetings had very little, if any public attendance other than us where now the public is engaged and attending meetings. The next critical step that has yet to be grasped by some is for the public to learn the laws and rules before expressing their opinions on matters.
An example is the former candidate for county board who repeatedly said the meeting where the board voted to sell the farm ground was an illegal meeting because the matter never went through the farm committee. Such a position is bogus and unsupported by law. If the person believed that was an illegal meeting all they had to do was file a request for review with the Attorney General’s PAC office. Doing so would have educated her on the law and what does or does not constitute a legal meeting, or she could have simply read the law on what constitutes a public meeting.
For educational purposes for those who still believe her position, read the law and ask two simple questions. Was the meeting properly posted with an agenda and was there a quorum? The answer is yes to both questions, thus there was nothing illegal about the meeting as claimed.
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.
The appointment of a coroner is a process outlined in the law and while the board did reference the option of appointing the Sheriff to that position, we did not hear any word from the Sheriff that he would accept such an appointment, which would be required according to the law.
(55 ILCS 5/3-3043) (from Ch. 34, par. 3-3043)
Sec. 3-3043. Vacancy; appointed coroner. When a permanent vacancy in the office of coroner occurs and the position is an appointed one, the county board shall fill the vacancy within 60 days from the time the vacancy occurs. If the sheriff of the county is selected to perform the duties of the coroner and the sheriff agrees to serve in that capacity, the sheriff may be compensated for those duties. This compensation shall be in addition to all other compensation received as sheriff. Any sheriff who is serving as coroner before the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1991 must be reappointed in order to continue to serve as coroner and to receive additional compensation under this Section.
(Source: P.A. 87-738.)
An interesting parallel that has taken place with the vacancy of the coroner which appears to now make sense to some, is the deputy coroners no longer have the power to perform those duties, much like an Assistant State’s Attorney losing their job when there is no SA. As offices that require commission from the Governor, when such an office becomes vacant, the powers of their deputies cease.
We will update you on the board’s future actions related to the appointment of a coroner and what they are going to do regarding the compensation issue.
No Comments