Watching the January 2nd Village Board meeting on Friday night was rather interesting.

But before we get into the analysis of the meeting, let’s get familiar with some of the events that transpired. I’m not going to try to cover every detail and action of the meeting. Rather, I’ll just mention the highlights.

After the initial formalities, the meeting jumped into public comments.

Paul Calusinski came before the Board to present an agenda of Fox Valley Citizens for Legal Immigration meeting from October 29, 2006 containing the following item:

Planning for upcoming 11/7/06 Village Board meeting (Humpfer/Sigwalt)

Mr. Calusinski believed it was a problem that two trustees were meeting with a special group to plan for upcoming Village Board meetings. Further, he said that when he once tried to attend one of these meetings, he was told he was not welcome.

Then, things kind of heated up when Ev Evertsen of Harvard came to speak to the Board once again on the creation of TIF Districts. President Sarto inquired of why Mr. Evertsen, a Harvard resident, had interest in speaking on TIF districts local to the economy of Carpentersville. Mr. Evertsen replied that he was a taxpayer. President Sarto pointed out that TIF districts are relevant to local property taxes, and that Mr. Evertsen lives even outside of School District 300. Mr. Evertsen then stated that he was against all TIF districts. President Sarto asked him if he had spoken at Dundee’s meeting where they had recently created a TIF district. Mr. Evertsen stated that he was unaware of that, before concluding his comments.

After Mr Evertsen completed his comments, Diane Evertsen came forward and to address President Sarto on the Rules of Decorum. Mrs. Evertsen asked President Sarto specifically, “Do you need a copy of these?” Sarto told her she could then sit down for her disrespect and “attack”.

Trustee Humpfer wanted to appeal the ruling of the President as he has done on a few occasions in the past, and told President Sarto “I don’t think you know the rules”, but seemed to quickly quiet down when President Sarto stated “Yes, I do know the rules.”

One last commenter of note (and I may have gotten them out of order) was Gloria VanCleave, who came to the podium and told President Sarto that “no one tells her what to say”. This was in response to the Daily Herald article that reported on the meetings that Sarto had called “secret” and “deceptive”, which Mr. Calusinski had also referred to above. However, Ms. VanCleave was asked to sit down when she made a derogatory remark to Sarto.

The one big item of Village business that night was the exemption of one gun from the list of those to be destroyed. An M-1 Carbine rifle. The VFW made a request for this gun to complete their color guard firearms used in parades and veteran’s services. State law does not allow for an item that has value to be donated by a municipality, so the Village will look at options to make this firearm available to the VFW.

So, the audience comments portion of the meeting was a bit wild and raucous as usual. But, the rest of the Board was unusually quiet. Even the objections were mostly mouse-like. Could it have anything to do with this being the first meeting after it came out that Trustees Sigwalt and Humpfer were meeting with Fox Valley Citizens for Legal Immigration, improperly meeting at Fire Station #3 — at no expense because of their positions in office — to discuss and strategize with the group for the upcoming Board meetings? Or, maybe its the result of may not having that meeting that helped.

As for President Sarto’s discussion and debate with Mr. Evertsen, I believe he should not have done so. However, I think that his question was pertinent in order to make a determination whether it was relevant to the Village, especially in light of the information above, and the fact that Mr. Evertsen had addressed the Board previously on this matter.

I guess something that I found interesting is that according to published Board meeting minutes, from Sepetember 2006 through November 2007, the Evertsen’s (Ev, Diane or both) have addressed the Carpentersville Village Board no less than 7 times. However, a check of regular meeting minutes published on the website for the City of Harvard, revealed that — going back over 2 1/2 years — neither of the Evertsen’s have ever spoken. I find that quite odd that they come approximately 30 miles to speak at the Village of Carpentersville meetings on at least 7 occasions. Yet, they have not spoken to the city council in their own city.

While that is not to say that we should not welcome those from other communities who can add something to our understanding of issues, we must also be wary of those who may come to further some personal agenda and take advantage of our forum for that purpose. Additionally, when coming to directly address the Village Board, statements should be respectful and related to agenda items.

In fact, all comments should be respectful.

But, public comments seem severely broken and need to be overhauled. More on that at a later time.

 

Finally, what should we make of Trustees Humpfer and Sigwalt leading a strategizing session for the 11/7/2006 meeting — even though the Board had agreed by a 4-3 vote at the previous meeting that discussion of the item was tabled (which should have also meant that it was tabled from public comments, since it was not presently a matter of Village business)? I think this is a very big deal. Minutes of the 11/7/2006 Board meeting show that several members of Fox Valley Citizens came before the Board to speak on the issue, though no discussion should have been allowed. It seems doubtful that Sigwalt and Humpfer were unaware. So, were they purposefully leading this session with the intent of circumventing that decision?

 

Why were Trustees Sigwalt and Humpfer leading a planning session for the Board meeting as part of the Fox Valley Citizens’ regular meeting when the Board had voted against allowing discussion at regular Village Board meetings, if not for that purpose?

It is interesting to look at the names that appear on the FVCFLI agenda, and the names of those who are regularly coming forward during public comments.

I think significant questions remain as to the use of their position on the Board to obtain Village resources for meetings with this group. A group that was also very involved in their re-election activities.

These are all questions that I hope will be answered by an investigation into the extent of trustees involvement in these meetings and how they played out in relation to conducting Village business. Is everything that is happening in Village government being decided at the Board meetings? Or are these decisions being made elsewhere?