The following was originally submitted as a comment on the “Better honesty needed from group, trustees” article. I felt that it was important enough to be posted separately. It is the text of a letter sent to the Carpentersville Village Board from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, dated January 23, 2008. Readers should take note of the warning to Trustees Sigwalt and Humpfer, and to the Board as a whole, about conducting such meetings.
The Honorable Bill Sarto
Village President
Village of Carpentersville
1200 L.W. Besinger Drive
Carpentersville, IL 60110
Village Trustees:
Keith Hinz
Paul Humpfer
Linda Ramirez Sliwinski
Ed Ritter
Judy Sigwalt
Kay Teeter
Re: Open Meetings Act Complaint #2008OMA10
Dear President Sarto and Members of the Board:
I am writing regarding an inquiry our office has received related to two members of the Carpentersville Village Board and their compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120.
Ms. Rebecca O’Halloran of The Courier News submitted an inquiry to our office stating that Trustees Paul Humpfer and Judy Sigwalt are participating in alleged meetings with constituents to discuss Board agenda’s as they relate to immigration issues prior to the Village’s public meeting. Further, the inquiry alleges that these gatherings were taking place at the Village fire station, but now occur in private residences. Please be advised that our office has also received two separate telephone calls from citizens complaining of these gatherings.
The purpose of my letter is to outline the provisions of the Act and caution the public body with regard to this matter. Under the Open Meetings Act, the public policy provisions states that “[i]t 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.” 5 ILCS 120/1.
“Meeting” is defined as “any gathering of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business.” 5 ILCS 120/1.02. In this instance, two members of the public body would not constitute a majority of the quorum and therefore the Act is not triggered. However, a cautionary note that is relevant here. If the purpose of the gatherings have as their intent the formulation of policy outside the public view, the spirit of the Act would be jeopardized, and the Board should be aware of the public perception issues that arise in circumstances such as these even though the Act is not triggered.
At this time, no further review is merited. However, if you have any questions, please contact me at [redacted].
Respectfully,
Terry Mutchler
Public Access Counselor
Assistant Attorney General
cc: Rebecca O’Halloran
Attorney James A. Rhodes
5 comments
Jan 31, 2008 at 7:58 am
James
I think people will say “See, nothing wrong happened. The “act was not triggered.”
These meetings still show evidence that the Village Board has been hijacked by a specific special interest group and although it seems action regarding these particular meetings isn’t necessary by the Atty Gnl, action by the voting public interested in furthering real change and improvement in C’ville is BADLY NEEDED!
Jan 31, 2008 at 8:11 am
Chrysippus
Quite true. Although, I think the “cautionary note” from the AG’s office is more problematic than it may seem at first review. In reality, this is not something that is tossed about lightly.
Further, I believe the AG’s office is only speaking on what it was presented; that “Trustees Paul Humpfer and Judy Sigwalt are participating in alleged meetings with constituents to discuss Board agenda’s as they relate to immigration issues prior to the Village’s public meeting” and “that these gatherings were taking place at the Village fire station, but now occur in private residences.”
From what I’ve heard, additional information was presented to the State’s Attorney’s office, who may be considering a separate investigation.
Nonetheless, I agree that “action by the voting public … is BADLY NEEDED”.
Jan 31, 2008 at 9:22 am
James
So two trustees where there – a “majority of the quorum” would be three, correct?
Jan 31, 2008 at 10:30 am
At a Glance
If I remember correctly, there were three Trustees that were elected on the same platform related to illegal immigration. How interesting it is that two of the three are in attendance at private meetings of a group related to these issues, among others.
The Trustees have indicated their knowledge of the laws regarding a quorum and said that they would make sure that there are not three members of the Board in attendance at these meetings. But that raises a question in my mind. Do Sigwalt and or Humpher ever discuss with any other Trustees, any of the information that was discussed at the private meetings they attended?
It sure seems they are in total agreement and work in concert with each other on many of the issues that come before the Board and in the public comments that are brought to the Village meetings. How is it possible that we have such a singular view on all our issues from Sigwalt and Co?
If there is any discussion between Trustees of events or information from the private meetings, it certainly would be problematic for the rules on Open Meetings. It just seems interesting that these Board members are always in total agreement on all issues related to these events. I wonder how that is possible if they are not in collusion with the outside organizations, of which they attend the meetings.
Jan 31, 2008 at 11:38 am
Chrysippus
Yes, that is correct. Three represents a “majority of a quorum”. It’s probably worth noting, however, that only two are needed to bring an item to the table (as with a “motion” and a “second”, for instance).