Thursday, August 11, 2011
"Closed Session" meetings are a necessary "evil"
A commentor on this blog recently asked about the frequency of closed session meetings being conducted by the Peru city coucil. I think it is a topic the public needs to understand. First of all, nobody promotes or encourages "open and honest" government more than I do. With that said, I recognize the fact that there will always be certain matters the governing body will be required to discuss in closed session for one reason or another. The best resource I have found to help the public understand the specifics of the Open Meetings Act is
www.illininosattorneygeneral.gov. Click on the Legislation tab and then click Ensuring Open and Honest Government. There you can find all the info you need, including the entire staute that describes how governing bodies are required to abide by the rules. I am always curious why a "closed session" meeting shows up on the agenda and at the same time I am always disappointed knowing that certain elected officials are being entrusted with what is probably some very critical decision making going on completely out of sight and out of public scrutiny. I say that because I beleive the potential for bad decision-making from at least a few of Peru's elected officials is normally pretty high. But the likelihood of bad decisions increases greatly when elected officials know they are being made out of public view. I suspect the discussions in closed session are much more interesting and candid than open meeting discussions. The most frustrating part of the the Open Meetings Act is the fact that the governing bodies are "not" required to release any closed session minutes. Officials are required only to review past meeting minutes periodically and then decide whether to release the minutes to the public or not. Would you like to guess what they decide to do more often than not? So, we will likely never know how some of our favorite elected officials express themselves when the discussion gets hot and nasty.
During the Baker years the mayor and aldermen would boast fairly often about how they "Never had to" go into closed session. They never even realized how ridiculous that boast made them look. It's true that they never used closed session that I am aware of. It's also absolute, ironclad, without question, 100% proof that there was only "ONE" decision maker in that administration. There were no closed sessions because there was no interest in any other viewpoints on the critical matters that require closed sessions. That's not the way democracy is supposed to work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Does anyone know , HOW MANY CLOSED SESSIONS WERE CONDUCTED UNDER MAYOR BAKER IN HIS 40 YEAR REIN ?
wow werent you the one that was all crazy with the past adminstration and the closed door meetinigs? now it is ok? politician at your best huh?
Steve: I'm the blogger who questioned the frequency of the closed session meetings we've been having. While I thank you for your explanation and I understand the rules and regulations involved I still feel the general public is being left out of a lot of valuable information. While I agree we cannot be privy to all government decisions I feel we are becoming more of a "closed" than "open" government. That is my personal opinion and I do believe we are over using "closed sessions".
To 6:40 - If you study and understand the guidelines of the act it helps relieve the tendancy we all have to suspect they are just hiding things from us. The public body can only use closed session for the reasons listed in the act. They cannot go into closed session for any reason they choose. They also must describe the reasons for going to closed session on the meeting agenda. I agree that it leaves many of us feeling left out. We are being left out. All we can do as concerned citizens is try to hold elected officials accountable to abide by the rules of the OMA as best we can. At least we know that whatever the issue is that prompts a closed session the entire city council is allowed to discuss it, albeit out of public view and minutes are being recorded and we should encourage our elected officials to be more willing to approve those minutes for release to the public. They will never let us sit in on those closed sessions but they would earn a lot of respect from me, and probably you also,
if they would release the minutes after the fact.
To 5:18 - You just don't get it do you? Try to understand that the past administration had the same decisions to make. Personnel matters, hiring and firing, discipline matters, land sales or purchases, negotiations with developers and businesses that must be kept quiet until
a deal is struck. Now stop and think! Where and how were these matters discussed and decided upon by the past administration?
Where are the records of the time and dates of these decisions and where is the record of who was there and what they said? There has been a mechanism in place for a long time to deal with these issues. It's called the OMA.
Bottom line is this, Baker could not have cared less about following the laws of the Open Meetings Act and he ignored them with disdain. Harl is doing it by the book as it should be done.
Just try to figure it out.
There should not be closed sessions to discuss wages UNLESS they are DECREASING them!!! If the City doesn't have money to pay contractors, it sure doesn't have enough money to increase wages!
Kristy
I do agree with you steve. Only one person made all the decisions in the last adminastration. We had a bunch of followers in that adminastrtion. Only one leader, whether he was right or wrong. Just his decisions. Sorry mess.
Steve, I don't see much of a difference between what Mayor Baker and Mayor Harl are doing either. Just two different methods of conducting business one person preferring to have a closed session which the public has no idea what is being discussed and the other person preferring to conduct the situation privately with those involved and than bring the results back to the council for their input. Please explain how you know more of what is going on in the weekly closed sessions than you did with Mayor Bakers business procedures. The most effective method is going to be measured by who obtains the greatest results. Incidently there is a Public Hearing Notice on August 15 at 7:15 at city hall in which interested parties are to be given an opportunity to express their views on the proposed federally CDBG project.
No laws were broken. Another conspiracy theory.
Steve, you must be pretending that you don't know what goes on in closed sessions? We all know better. Your continued attack on the Baker is both non effective and non productive. His style did not brake any laws. If he did, we all believe you and your group would provide all the evidence. It is also a common tool to deflect any obvious faults the current Mayor has by point critical daggers at the previous Mayor. As far as policy is concerned all votes must be taken in public view. Its the day to day operations that are the responsibility of the Mayor and those appointed by the Mayor to carry out those duties. If you feel left out, you know when and where the mayor is, ask him. Don't blame closed sessions. By law they are discussions only, not policy or votes. Deflect the current situation and reflect on the past is a strategy that you feel comfortable with. It may work for some, but the silent majority know better.
To 11:05 a.m.,11:52 a.m. and 2:34 p.m. - A blogger asked a question about closed sessions and I responded. The OMA provides for and requires public bodies to notify the public when and where a closed session will take place and requires that minutes be recorded of who is there and what is discussed. Eventually the public body will have to decide to release the record to the public. At least the OMA gives the public notification and basis for what is going on. If you can't see the difference between abiding by the requirements of the act as opposed to a quorum of aldermen discussing city business over complimentary cocktails then that says something about you.
Be advised of the following:
The Attorney General of the State of Illinois agreed with me in 2008 when it officially reprimanded the city of Peru, specifically Alderman Jack O'Beirne and Mayor Don Baker for knowingly conducting
an illegal meeting to discuss a $2.5 million contract extension with officials from TEST, Inc. It matters not if they take a vote or not, the meeting was illegal and it wasn't the first time.
You can continue to defend and deny but I'm satisfied with the ruling from Lisa Madigan's office.
Another closed session listed for Monday's meeting. No explanation even given for this one. I'm sorry Steve but I just can't believe (or prefer not to believe) that we have this much secretive business that needs to be discussed behind closed doors. If we do I think we better start solving these problems and moving forward toward that "open and honest" government we are still waiting for. Too many subjects discussed, hit upon, but never resolved or revealed to the citizens of Peru.
Is there any truth to the rumor going around that a local restaurant owner was attempting to buy crazy d's and the pine cone property? I heard they (restaurant owners) were rejected because they wanted to clean-up, remodel, and re-use the current structures, and the city "officials" want those buildings torn down and the property re-developed. Doesn't the city need sales tax income? Or do they already have a "developer" in mind? Let's see who ends up with the property.
Its unlikely a city official would be able to tell a private business owner not to remodel a building. They would have to prove the building is unstable. If you remember the Pine Cone was in good shape. More than likely the sale was not made and coffee house rumors tend to be false.
Post a Comment