Editor’s note: This post has been updated in order to clarify the series of events leading up to the mayor’s call for a possible rules change.
Saying he believes “very strongly” in a one-week waiting period before voting on certain Consent Agenda items, Commissioner William Waldack requested at Tuesday’s village council meeting that four items be moved to the Active Agenda as a prelude to putting them to a Feb. 16 vote.
The items were duly removed from the Consent Agenda, but Waldack’s subsequent motions to get the items considered on next week’s Consent Agenda not only failed to gain the support of his council colleagues, but also led Mayor Ron Sandack to suggest a rule change may be necessary to prevent a single commissioner from exercising the long-held prerogative. In a typical year, less than a dozen items might be requested moved from the Consent to the Active Agenda.
Waldack said the one-week waiting period, which was standard operating procedure until the council agreed to change its meeting format last month, allows for residents to respond and council members to obtain additional information.
Some of the items in question at Tuesday’s meeting “cost more than what some households make in a year,” Waldack said. “I do not consider them routine.”
The four Consent Agenda items in question were:
B RES 00-04034 A resolution authorizing a fifth addendum to a software maintenance agreement with Crowe Horwath, LLP, in the amount of $24,750.
C MOT 00-04039 A motion awarding 2010 traffic signal maintenance contract to Lyons Electric Company, LaGrange, IL, not to exceed $47,000.
D RES 00-04042 A resolution authorizing an agreement for prosecution services with Linda S. Pieczynski, Attorney at Law, P.C., in the amount of $35,000.
E RES 00-04040 A resolution of intent to continue participation in the Suburban Tree Consortium and to authorize certain purchases for FY 2010 in the amount of $123,000.
The items had been added to the Consent Agenda on Friday, Feb. 5, and answers to council questions were provided only two or three hours before the meeting, he said. “What we consider routine deserves more consideration than a business day and a half.”
Council rules allow a commissioner to request any item be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate approval. However, in the interest of making meetings more efficient, the council agreed to waive the customary one-week waiting period for routine matters.
Referencing a Consent Agenda item for prosecutorial services, “we want to get it done sooner rather than later and not have to wait one week,” Sandack said.
Waldack, in making his motions to postpone action on the items, had asked village staff whether economic considerations, time constraints or other concerns made it necessary to approve the items immediately. The answer in each case was, “no.”
In his comments at the end of the meeting, Sandack said he hopes ” it isn’t going to happen that one member of this council is going to use his prerogative to change what we did collectively and what Commissioner Waldack agreed to do because of what he believes isn’t routine.”
“If that’s the case, I’m going to ask my colleagues to consider a rule change because the one-person objecting rule was when we had five council members. We have seven now and I don’t think one person should hold up a Consent Agenda if everyone else thinks it’s a routine matter,” he said.
“This isn’t a threat, its a legitimate request for a rule change if we can’t live up to the rules we just changed,” Sandack said. “We agreed routine items would be on the Consent Agenda and now, a couple weeks into the rule change, it’s being gutted.”
Waldack noted that he expressed concerns about the matter when the meeting format change was being discussed. He also proposed a solution that would place items on the Consent Agenda one week in advance of council action to allow for discussion.
“I have a solution that would maintain efficiency and give adequate public notice and solve the problem,” he said. “There is more upside than the prospect of efficiency. If I need to go home that early, maybe I shouldn’t be here.
Waldack’s request to remove the items from the Consent Agenda came only one week after a similar request from Commissioner Bob Barnett at the Feb. 2 council meeting.
Barnett asked that approval of the Comprehensive Plan Ad Hoc Committee be removed from the Consent Agenda despite the fact that the item had been previously discussed at the Jan. 12 council meeting.
“Absolutely,” Sandack said in response to Barnett’s request.
Barnett went on to propose an amendment that would expand the committee from nine to 11 members, including four at-large members.
The amendment was approved by the council over the objections of Waldack, who felt an 11-member committee would be unwieldy.
Sandack announced Tuesday that he had made the additional two appointments, although he wouldn’t reveal the names publicly. The two members are expected to attend tonight’s Comprehensive Plan Ad Hoc Committee meeting, although they won’t be formally approved by the council until next week.
It bears watching, what is rushed through.
Rushed? I don’t think so. But that’s an uneducated understanding of the process perhaps. I thought that council recieved information prior to the meeting to review.
I didn’t think the first time they saw the info was at the meeting. One could look at it the other way and say, it bears watching who needs so much time to make a decision.
Those issues looked pretty routine to me. I don’t have a scorecard for “who’s-who” on the board so I can only speculate from above what Commissioner Waldack’s real motive was. Can someone please enlighten?
Thank you greg for your post. I believe that you “hit the nail on the head.”.
Commissioner Waldack (henceforth “CW” on my typing-challenging Blackberry) takes positions that are frequently contrary to the community concensus view. That is strange in a community like Downers Grove. This community has only 50,000+ citizens with largely similar goals and aspirations.
Somehow, CW seems to be the one Commissioner most likely to cast a dissenting vote on concensus positions. In our community. I think that constructive dissent is part of the American fabric. I also think that bashing any point of view without a constructve alternative is political — and not what we expect of a local public servant.
Comm Waldack — if you object to something, that is fine. I teach my junior staff to do that AND to help me and our company do things better. Kids out of college can do that in the workplace. You need to try to do that in Downers Grove.
Don’t say NO without a reasonable alternative.
I appreciate how Waldack stands up for things even if he’s not in the majority, and I appreciate it if he doesn’t want to thoughtlessly throw around Downers Grove’s money. I believe he really cares. But on the other hand, as someone who has had bosses turn what were my simple, 5-minute decisions into a drawn-out, week-long approval-seeking process – ultimately to no benefit, I have to side with the other council members on this one. Sometimes you just have to “git-er done” and not drag out every decision. You’re paying a lawyer, you’re working on getting trees planted, etc. here – not negotiating a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace accord!
It is interesting how you need to be on the “IN” side of the VC to have an opinion matter.
CW was elected and reelected by the residents of DG.
We knew what we were getting and wanted him back.
I like RS but everyone on the council is a rubber stamp except CW.
Hope I don’t get a nasty email from any VC members for expressing opinion different from their direction.
I believe no one on Council is a rubber stamp. Issues being discussed are issues that all members of Council agree on. If they are such a rubber stamp then why did they disagree with the budget as much? What issues are there in the Village that are debatable??
WC is grand standing. He voted to change the meeting format and he knew what the process was before he voted for it. Shame on WC not the rest of Council.
Oh ya?
I think this council is a pretty accurate cross section of the village. I think proportionally speaking this councils political philosophic composition is representative of the community at large.
With a change to the number of meetings in a month there are bound to be bumps. If something is going to be set on the consent agenda council members should be given sufficient time to review and consider it. I don’t see how, to use a previous poster’s abbreviation, CW’s request is out of line – especially in light of the Mayor’s grant of a similar request by Commissioner Barnett with regard to an item that had been previously discussed at a council meeting.
OK, EJ, we don’t need unique names? This is awkward.. Hmm, what to go by now??
Thanks for pointing that out, greg. The change has been made.
I am involved in Student Senate at my school and I can tell you that we do appointments to various boards and commissions that way and 99.9999% of the time no one pulls them. Also if anything is under $50.00 it doesn’t need to go for Senate’s approval. I am all for fiscal responsibility and I am one of the most stingiest members when it comes to Student Fee money but can you just imagine if EVERY expense of under $50.00 went in front of senate how tortures that would be???? I’d be going postal.
Sorry Elaine, after writing all this, it’s easier to just read. LOL.
When Martin Tully was Council Commissioner and Mayor Pro Tem Waldack said he was the “verbose” explainer to citizens watching and wondering about Village business. Whatever the item, Martin Tully explained what the item was, why they were discussing it, and how it fit into the great scheme of things. Along with all that, he added his own thoughts and opinions. That meant Tully talked. And talked. And talked. And he was good at it, both at talking and explaining so everyone understood what was going on. Kudos Martin.
Watching the meeting tonight about the two Commissioners thing Waldack waxed nostalgic that the current council doesn’t explain much about what they’re doing. If Mayor Sandack doesn’t explain it, which he sometimes does clearly and sometimes does not so clearly, it doesn’t get done. Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Schnell is not filling Tully’s shoes in this regard. No one is.
Even Mayor Sandack missed that the two extra people were added to the Comprehensive Planning Committee. It was on the Consent Agenda, and it got passed with all the other stuff without anyone talking about it, explaining it to people. Talk about poster child for what Waldack was talking about. Who got added? Thoman knows but he’s got Durkin and Neustadt bitin’ his ass from last week for blogging too much. Thanks a bunch guys, at least he talks about stuff and tries to explain it. Maybe one of you two could pick up the slack?
The two Commissioner change probably won’t happen right away. No one seemed thrilled by it. Mayor Sandack seemed okay with that.
So nothing changed and everything is okay for now. Sure wish someone would fill in for Tully though. All his talking woulda saved a lot of time.
SO I wouldn’t call it biting my ass; they don’t want me writing about Comprehensive Plan stuff before it happens. As for explaining stuff, there’s an element of “in the eyes of the beholder”, but I agree Tully did a good job as village expainerer.
And yeah, ain’t so easy writing up something other than an brief pithy opinion, is it…Jive Turkey.
Try it again, though. I promise, it gets easier as you go along, and the more people who contribute the better.
PS- Margy Sigerich and Rich Bollow were added.
Ok…I will be the first to say it on this blog!
Tully for Council in 2011!! Come on back Martin!
Who is Martin going to replace on the current Council?
I like Martin. I had his signs in front of my house and attended his first fundraiser way back when but I think Martin did the right thing by stepping aside and letting others step up.
What ever happened to the idea of term limits??