Sangamon Co. (ECWd) –
During last night’s Village of Rochester special meeting, Mayor Suerdieck refused to provide the public with any details of the settlement agreement.
We had reported yesterday in this article, that the taxpayers were going to be on the hook for an estimated $175,00.00 due to the conduct of their Mayor.
During the meeting, I questioned their process as there was no recital with sufficient information to inform the public of the action being taken as required in section 2e of the Open Meetings Act, in our opinion.
“2(e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted.”
The agenda item stated the following:
- 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.
After asking if they would provide a copy of the settlement to the public at the meeting, we were told by the village attorney that we would have to FOIA a copy of the settlement agreement. The attorney alleged they were compliant with the Open Meetings Act.
Based on Allen V. Clark County Park District case law, we contend that the Mayor failed to comply with section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act as the public has no idea what the settlement agreement was or what the “Other Actions in Connection Therewith” means.
The parallel of what happened last night to what the court said in Allen v. Clark County Park district is clear.
“We find it telling that, after the Board voted on the lease rates and covenants, a member of the public asked the Board to explain what had happened. The Board responded, not by providing additional information, but by telling the audience, “They gotta [sic] get recorded at – 9 – the courthouse first. I’m sorry.” Whatever the standard might be for a public recital, the Board failed to meet it in this case.”
What was the settlement the Village of Rochester agreed to? Was it money” Was it a reduction in liquor license fees? Was it a tax abatement? What were the “Other Actions in Connection Therewith” that they agreed to? It appears crystal clear; the public has no clue what the board agreed to based on what took place at the meeting.
In the Springfield School Board 186 v. Attorney General case law, key language indicates where Rochester failed to comply.
“Approval of a Resolution regarding the *** Agreement *** between *** Milton and the Board.” Underneath that description appeared a link to an attachment. Selecting that link transferred the interested party to another portion of the Board’s website where the en-tire Agreement was displayed. The provided Agreement contained the pertinent details regard-ing the parties’ respective duties, rights, and obligations. Interested parties could then view, print, or download the agreement.”
The mayor not only refused to answer a single question on the matter, but he also failed to disclose the agreement that was being approved, let alone disclose a single detail. That appears to be in direct conflict with the Springfield School Board case where they at least provided the agreement to the public through its display on the website. It pretty much matches perfectly with what happened to us in our Allen v. Clark County Park District case, which we won.
We understand the agreement is at least 10 pages long and since the mayor, based on advice from counsel, refused to disclose any details of what the settlement agreement involved, a request for review with the Attorney General will be filed.
We also contend they failed to deliberate openly as required by Sec. 1 of OMA.
(5 ILCS 120/1) (from Ch. 102, par. 41) Sec. 1. Policy. It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business. In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. (emphasis added)
In this case, the board conducted their deliberations in closed session and all action taken in open session had zero deliberation on the subject. They went from a motion, a second to the motion, and called the vote without any discussion or deliberation on the final action being taken.
We learned after the meeting that the settlement was for $170,000.00 and that it is the taxpayers who will have to pick up the tab because the Village Insurance denied coverage.
We, along with one of the board members during the meeting, called for the mayor’s immediate resignation. We were told after the meeting that his resignation had been asked for by several board members and he has stood defiant throughout.
We will update with another article once we get a copy of the settlement agreement.
The video of the meeting is below. During the closed session, we left the video on but there is no audio. They came back from a closed session and the audio was turned back on at the 52:18 mark of the video.
No Comments