Really?

The exception to the OMA clearly states PENDING litigation, not decided litigation.  The Appellate Court did not find Error, Remand, Modify or Reverse the Circuit Court’s decision; it Affirmed.  So is the board weighing whether to waste even more tax dollars in appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court?  Or file a different appeal?

(2) “Litigation, when an action against, affecting, or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending in a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that such an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting.” 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11). [Note: This exception operates to bring back under the Act certain gatherings which were excepted by the Appellate Court in People ex rel. Hopf v. Barger, 30 Ill. App. 3d 525 (Second Dist. 1975). The exception does not authorize the closing of a meeting merely because an attorney is present and/or legal issues are to be discussed. Litigation must be probable, imminent or pending before the exception can be used. The term "litigation" does not encompass deliberations of a public body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity on matters before it for decision. See 1983 Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. 10; but see 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(4). The phrase "probable or imminent" means "likely to occur." See 1983 Ill. Att'y Gen. Op. 82.]

Emphasis are mine.

As far as adequacy of a motion to go into closed session over litigation?  From the Illinois Association of School Boards website, citation of this case as an example:

Henry v. Anderson (v. Champaign Community Unit School District No. 4), 827 N.E.2d 522 (Ill.App.4, 4-18-05).

The second meeting being scrutinized violated the Open Meetings Act because the reason given for going into closed session – “litigation” – was not supported by required information. Said the court: “The ‘litigation’ exception is a forked path. If the litigation has been filed and is pending, the public body need only announce that in the proposed closed meeting, it will discuss litigation that has been filed and is pending. If the litigation has not yet been filed, the public body must (1) find that the litigation is probable or imminent and (2) record and enter into the minutes the basis for that finding. Evidently, the legislature intended to prevent public bodies from using the distant possibility of litigation as a pretext for closing their meetings to the public.” The court remanded the case to the trial court for a remedy determination.

Again, emphasis mine.

Woodridge has said their legal bills topped $800,000.  D99 so far has been mum on the total legal costs.

FOIA request e-filed Tuesday August 3

I filed an email FOIA request for a listing of the legal invoices (just the list and amounts, not copies of each bill), and have yet to hear anything back even though state law requires some sort of response within 5 business days.  Note the time stamp on the reply.

Acknowledged and ignored. Business as usual.

I guess today is technically the fifth day if you ignore the day it was sent, so I could still get a response…or maybe they can’t give that complete listing because they’re not done running up the legal bills, which some have estimated at over $1,000,000 and climbing.

Might be less than that, might be more.  We’ll see, but right now it looks like each member of the Gang 0f Five have cost D99 taxpayers $360,000 each; a possible $1.8 million dollars, not one dime of which was spent on anything to do with education.

Remember that come election time.

UPDATE: DGreport reader Dan Slayden and two other attorneys who choose not to comment publicly mention the decision has a 30 day period before being final.  Tonight the D99 BOE chose to accept that decision.

Trouble is, even something we all can agree on — the need for civility in public office — can become a weapon by which to bludgeon the minority if it is inconsistently and strategically applied.

More and more in our little town, I’ve noticed that the people publicly calling out others for their “uncivil” behavior are too often guilty of the same offense.

That’s why, in a recent Sun column, I not only declined to name those who had recently engaged in uncivil public exchanges, but also took the opportunity to reconsider my own practices:

The officials making these statements in the heat of the moment aren’t “bad” people, and it’s for that reason that I’ve avoided identifying them here by name. Instead, I suspect that… people have shorter fuses today than in the past.

To that I would add that our culture, and our town, have become increasingly intolerant of other opinions, disparate points of view and philosophical differences.

Partisanship has become entrenched, particularly in the past five or 10 years. Somewhere along the way, the goal moved beyond winning the debate or triumphing over the opposition to crushing those who simply hold a different view or dare to speak their mind.

Snark has been elevated to high art, and if you doubt me, just spend an hour on Twitter. Facebook has become a vehicle for almost every human endeavor or discourse, including putting down the “enemy” and polishing your own credentials in the process.

And along the way, too many of us have lost sight of the fact that it’s actually a good thing to respectfully disagree, to be exposed to a wide range of viewpoints and even to passionately debate and defend our position, as long as we stop short of allowing our differences to become so petty and personal that we refuse to acknowledge the good work and redeeming characteristics of the person across the table.

As someone who has been offering up her occasionally pointed opinions for nearly seven years, I’m the first to acknowledge that it can be difficult to keep disagreements from devolving into incivility, particularly when one feels attacked.

I’m also the first to admit that I’m not blameless, so I’ve resolved to redouble my own efforts at civility, and to encourage commenters on my blog to follow suit.

In the past year, tempers have flared repeatedly on both school boards and the village council. Harsh comments have been exchanged — some of which would have been widely and rightfully disdained if they’d appeared on the DGreport, whether anonymously or signed.

That’s one reason I’ve personally rejected the argument that anonymous comments are the end of civility. While anonymity certainly can provide cover for inappropriate attacks, incivility also is increasingly on display in e-mails, on government daises and in public places.

Commenter Meat unleashed a small firestorm on this blog by posting his displeasure with a local coach who reportedly used bad language (loudly) in a local ice cream shop.

If, when or how to call out such behavior is a delicate question.  In recent months I’ve held back from quoting some rash public comments for fear of  being charged with “stirring the pot.”  However, declining to report on what is said in a public meeting also could be viewed as protecting the offender — a mistake I vow not to repeat.

Why had I become uncharacteristically reticent? Because I’ve been the object of  the same personal attacks as others in this town who hold alternative or unpopular views.

Last fall, I respectfully approached a local citizen, asking permission to quote in my Sun column a constructive public statement that person had made. Here is an excerpt from the e-mail response I received:

I cannot trust that you will write something that doesn’t twist my thoughts and intentions and mock me for them.  That is my main reservation, and I have no desire to be put up like a pinata that your gang will delight in taking unrestrained and unprincipled whacks at simply because my honest desire to be a part of a community-wide discussion has been held up to ridicule.

Given that I’ve never in seven years been told by my editors that my columns that have “twisted” or “held up to ridicule” my subjects’ intentions or elicited “unrestrained and unprincipled whacks,” I took this response for what it undoubtedly was: a personally intended slight.

A truly civil exchange would eschew such personal attacks while allowing for sometimes passionately disparate views.  It’s not an easy balance to strike, but it’s a worthwhile one.  Because as long as people choose to make their differences personal — whether in a private communication or in a public forum — incivility will become increasingly entrenched in Downers Grove.

I’ll take him at his word — and offer a few of my thoughts later in this post (and invite you to do the same). But first a little background.

Sandack  introduced the possibility of limiting mayoral terms during his 2007 campaign. “I want to be a citizen mayor — not a career politician,” he wrote at the time.

“This village is full of competent people whose expertise can be invaluable to our community and with an ethics ordinance prohibiting non-stop campaigning, qualified residents needn’t worry about raising obscene funds in order to run for office. Correspondingly, the next council should seriously consider limiting the office of mayor to two consecutive terms assuring the residents of fresh ideas and new leadership opportunities.”

He resurfaced the idea at the March 16 council meeting, suggesting that commissioners be limited to three consecutive terms and the mayor held to two consecutive terms. Elected village officials serve for four-year terms.

Sandack acknowledged that the subject of term limits “invokes a decent amount of emotion.”

“Some think elections are term limits. Others feel it’s good succession planning,” he said, emphasizing that it is residents’ opinion, and not his or his fellow council members, that matter.

Sandack also read an e-mail from absent Commissioner Marilyn Schnell, who in 2009 was elected to her sixth council term and is the only sitting commissioner who would be impacted by a term-limits ordinance should she choose to run again.

“I’ve always believed the people of Downers Grove have the right to decide who their elected officials should be,” Schnell said.  “An election is a unique opportunity for the residents to tell their officials how they’re doing and how responsive they have been to the electorate.

“If they want an individual to continue to serve, they will reelect them, if not they will vote them out of office,” Schnell said, adding that she considers it a “plus” for the village council to include both experienced and new members.

“It allows for a unique exchange of ideas which can only benefit the community,” she said. f a referendum on term limits is put before the community, “residents will do what they think is right for the community.”

Whatever the outcome of the proposed referendum, it wouldn’t be the final word on the issue.  That could only come after the community votes in favor of the proposition in a binding referendum.

Resident Gordon Goodman took issue with the potential for two ballots on the same issue.  “If you really want to accomplish something with term limits, put it on as a binding referendum and see how people feel about it,” he told the council.

I agree with Goodman that once would be enough for most voters. Given the amount of time before the August deadline for submitting the question, why not hold a public hearing or two to allow for full discussion and then go ahead with a binding referendum if called for?

Not that I would necessarily be one of those calling for it.  To be sure, there are good reasons to give the matter careful consideration.  Sandack told the DGreport term limits could potentially dial down the political pressure by offering commissioners “a freedom of sorts to vote in a manner that is devoid of any thought of re-election.”

He also said more residents might be encouraged to run for Village Council. “I think there’s an inherent hesitancy for many to challenge incumbents,” he said.

“All of this, I assert, depoliticizes the election and turn-over processes a bit (albeit subtly) and offers opportunities for new residents to serve without some of the perceived baggage. And the goal, I assume, is to encourage talented and interested residents to take time out of their busy lives and serve their village.

“We know we, as a community, have lots of thoughtful and talented people,” Sandack said. “So, why not remove some known barriers to community involvement?”

But if it’s barriers to community involvement that are prompting the discussion on term limits, perhaps we should extend the concept to appointed village offices? Indeed, the number of citizens appointed to village boards and commissioners dwarfs those elected. And many of these appointed officials wield considerable influence, if not power.

The library board, for example, has the authority to set that institution’s budget and tax levy. Among those who have served long years on the board are president Stephen Daniels and trustee Kathy DiCola, who were both recently re-appointed to six-year terms.

Daniels, when I approached him last fall to discuss the board’s budget actions, flatly refused to speak to me. I found this troubling. Yet, as a Downers Grove voter, I have no ability to register my concern at the ballot box.

Term limits, anyone?

Stephens and DiCola are among the many local volunteers who have been appointed again and again to local boards and commissions. In some cases — and I believe the library board is one of them — there aren’t many or any alternative candidates vying for the job.

However, in other cases, residents submit their applications repeatedly before finally getting tapped for a seat at the table. And some never are. Meanwhile, a number of “regulars” serve on multiple commissions concurrently.

I’m not sure whether limiting participation on appointed boards and commissions would work or not. However, I suggest it should be part of any discussion of term limits, if only because so many elected officials begin their involvement in local government in that way.

Schnell started out on the Plan Commission, commissioners Sean Durkin and Bob Barnett served as liquor commissioners (Barnett went on to be appointed to the Stormwater and Flood Plain Oversight Committee) and Geoff Neustadt was a member of the Traffic Advisory and Human Service commissions.

It appears Sandack may agree. “The sentiment certainly seems applicable to our boards and commissions, too,” he said.

“I do not believe there would be a numbers problem, in fact, the village may see more interest from residents with a more organized rotation.”

“I would like to see, through council action or staff, that any member who is on the commission refrain from any sort of blogging until after this council votes on this matter,” Durkin said.

“There are certain members of this committee who have blogged, blog or have their own Web sites,” he said. “So, I’m not pointing a finger at any specific person or person, but I just ask that whatever is discussed at this stays at the level it is and not on the internet.”

This is, to my knowledge, the first time such a concern has been floated by a member of the village council. Maybe because DGreport contributor Mark Thoman was about to be appointed a member of the committee?

Thoman is surely the most active blogger on the committee, which also includes Bill White and Marge Earl of the Zoning Board of Appeals; Alan Jirik, Audra Hamerik and Gregg Beggs of the Plan Commission; Mike Davenport of the Architecture Design Review Board, John Wendt of the Traffic and Parking Commission and at-large member Paul Jacobs. Two additional at-large members are yet to be appointed following Tuesday’s vote to increase the committee.

White, of course, was the publisher of the now defunct Wired Grove blog before assuming his current roles as chairman of the ZBA, D99 school board member and, as of Tuesday, chairman of the CPC. While a regular commenter during the 2007 campaign, he has offered only a very occasional comment on the DGreport since.

Marge Earl also has commented here on limited basis, most recently to report on last month’s Community Events Commission meeting, while Mike Davenport has commented just once.

None of their comments have been strident, indiscreet or otherwise objectionable. Thoman, on the other hand, has certainly come in for some push-back for his posts. However,  he’s made it clear he is stepping back from blogging on the DGreport and focusing his attentions on the CPC.

“Mayor Sandack knows I continue to be appreciative of the opportunity to serve the village, and appreciative of his appointing me to what everyone knows to be a key undertaking of the village,” Thoman said.

While I have no problem with Durkin raising the question of blogging in conjunction with boards and commissions — in fact, I think it should be raised — I would have appreciated a larger discussion of the issue.

As it turned out, commissioners Geoff Neustadt and William Waldack were the only ones to weigh in, although Durkin said he “had communications with several colleagues and there were no objections” to his proposal.

“I think there’s a different kind of respect and professionalism that comes once on an acting board or commission, Neustadt said. “I fully expect all of our appointees to respect and follow rules of conduct for the municipal organization and that board and commission.”

It took Waldack to point out that the council was framing the question in the narrowest possible terms by focusing on blogging to the exclusion of other social media — of which local officials including the mayor, Neustadt, and commissioners Bob Barnett and Bruce Beckman make regular use.

“I know the rules apply,  we  have legal standards we have to meet and I know there’s a concern,” Waldack said. “Keep in mind it doesn’t mean no blogging, because keep in mind we have council members up here always Twittering and blogging, Facebooking and everything else .

“The standards that apply to us would probably apply to them as well. It doesn’t put a kibosh on blogs,” he said.

Waldack’s point speaks to the universality of social media. This is an era when members of Congress Twitter from the U.S. Capitol during the president’s State of the Union address, policy discussions flourish on local Facebook pages and the Village itself makes regular use of Twitter and TribLocal, and also posted an official statement on the “Bring Back the Heritage Fest” group’s Facebook page.

So where to we draw the line? At all digital media? All blogs? Or just the DGreport?

I wrote in yesterday’s Sun column about the difficulties and challenges digital media present to the dinosaurs among us — journalists, government officials and consumers of the “news.” Falling into two of those groups myself, I’m certainly sympathetic to the third.

However, at the risk of sounding self-serving, I’m going to suggest it could appear that public officials are personally motivated when they single out one tiny corner of the digital universe as off-limits and apply that criterion to a single committee.

By all means have a discussion — a far-reaching, all-inclusive discussion — of what the explosion of  blogs and other digital and social media means to government business as usual. But, please. Be fair.

Rule #1: Whatever the event, it can’t incur any direct or indirect village costs.  All other rules: there aren’t any.

The Facebook girls (5,907 followers and counting) and some teens were there.  Well done!   Past them, there were only six or seven others of us there, Mayor Sandack and Marge Earl included.  I was surprised by the lack of attendance, but I’ll take it as a good sign that wheels are in motion.

The five main things the CEC will be looking for an event to do are:

1. Improve the local economy.
2. Provide entertainment
3. Provide a sense of community.
4. Increase awareness of Downers Grove to a wider audience.
5. Provide community partnership opportunities for businesses and not-for-profits (think youth groups, church groups, scouts, guides and more).

There was some discussion that #3 and #5 needed to be higher on the list, and #2 could slide lower.

I had to leave then so I missed the teens and comments.  Perhaps Ms. Earl, if she reads this, could add some light to the balance of the meeting.  Or check the FB page via the above link.

Both the Arts Council and the Rotary have applications in for versions of a summer fest.  It sounds like the two groups are not currently tracking as one event, so maybe two smaller events take the place of Heritage Fest?  And there’s still a teen event possible.

Had to run and change a tire on Mrs. T’s ride.  What a lousy night to get a flat, in Woodridge no less, although the cold spurred me on to a record time.

In a series of June e-mails, Chaplin pressed financial administrator Max Richter for the 2009 operating loss and the projected loss for 2010-11.  “The loss from regular operations has been steadily climbing and at some point will overwhelm the sales tax and investment income,” she wrote.

“Since it appears that there is no plan in the near future to increase the rates to meet our bond obligation and charge what it costs to operate the system and fund the bonds, how long can the commission continue on with this misguided reliance on sales tax to fund the system?” asked Chaplin, who represents District 2.

It took nearly a week for Richter to respond to Chaplin’s questions, stating that “the operating loss for FY 2008-09 will be $24.9 million prior to any auditing adjustments” and future operating losses were projected to be $16.8 million in 2009-10 and $18.9 million in 2010-11.

Chaplin asked about the projections again in August and once more in September, but “there was no time to get it on the agenda.”

On September 12, Chaplin e-mailed several colleagues, noting that Richter had projected the losses would overwhelm the commission’s sales tax and interest income by 2019-20.

“I believe this is an important issue that is not being presented to the board and needs to be discussed to determine if the commission should be looking into this issue, since I am sure our sales tax revenue and interest income is down more than projected,” she wrote.

Richter reportedly was forced to resign from his post in October after it was discovered money from the fund had been improperly allocated. The discovery was made when the commission’s former financial administrator, Richard Skiba, filled in during Richter’s medical leave in September. Richter hasn’t been accused of any wrong-doing.

The commission recently brought in outside investigators to determine what happened to the reserve and is considering raising rates to the 30 municipalities and unincorporated areas it serves by as much as 42 percent.

“We sell water cheaper to the municipalities than we buy it from the City of Chicago,” Chaplin told the DGreport. “As the municipalities’ rates were going down, our rates were going up. We never passed that along to the consumer.”

Chaplin said she became concerned this year because sales tax revenue and investment income had decreased due to the recession.

“Sales tax was never meant to be used as a subsidy for rates, but to build the infrastructure to bring water from Chicago to DuPage County,” she said. The quarter cent tax had been approved in a 1985 referendum that also allowed the commission to issue $150 million in general obligation bonds.

Eventually, the commission had accumulated $198 million in sales tax revenue. In 2003, legislation was passed forcing the commission to transfer $75 million in sales tax income to the county in order to offset its budget shortfalls.

Despite that, the commission acted to reduce rates by 12 percent in 2005. “We had so much money, we gave to the county, reduced water rates and rebated $40 million to the municipalities two years ago,” said Chaplin, who had attempted for more than five years to convince the commission to drop the sales tax.

“The municipalities want the rate low and no one really asked questions,” Chaplin said. “There was no accountability of the staff.”

Meanwhile other commissioners would commend the staff for its stellar performance, she said.

With the exception of some Naperville commissioners, “board members don’t ask questions,” she said. “Board members want to be popular more than they want to do what’s right.”

Chaplin, an eight-year veteran of the board, also ran afoul of popular opinion by questioning other commission practices and expenditures.

She questioned the commission’s budget presentations, which until recently compared figures on a budget-to-budget rather than budget-to-actual basis.

She questioned the commission’s practice of spending as much as $18,000 on tuition reimbursement for individual staff members — “Why is that the taxpayers’ problem?” — and was successful in getting the maximum benefit reduced to $4,000.

She also criticized thousands of dollars in expenditures for employee recognition luncheons, “book talk”  events, redundant educational programs, and the annual holiday luncheon and commission holiday party.

And after being rebuffed in her requests for receipts for $4,600 in office supplies purchased in March and April 2008, Chaplin filed a FOIA for the information. She learned commission staffers had received more than 400 gifts from suppliers.

These are among the ethical concerns Chaplin would like to see addressed by the board. “I’ve asked that we look into getting an outside ethics officer,” she said.

“The lack of transparency leads to a lack of trust,” Chaplin said. “When you serve on a board and people aren’t willing to answer questions, as a board member you become more and more leery of what’s going on.”

Even as the village is contemplating major cuts — two police officers, several community events and the Department of Counseling and Social Services among them — the six-member library board approved a four percent budget increase which includes potential raises of 3.5 percent as part of a multi-year effort to bring staff salaries more in line with those of other libraries.

In all fairness, these actions and the discussions preceding them all took place in public meetings. The board’s longstanding custom of providing an opportunity for public comment on the budget and tax levy found no takers on August 26. Nor did Library Director Christopher Bowen receive a single comment or question from the community about the proposed budget, which was on view in the library’s government documents collection.

But if the library board’s deliberations have been overlooked in the past, that’s likely to change in today’s economic climate where, in the words of Mayor Ron Sandack, “things are different and need to be accomplished differently.”

I wanted to discuss this prospect with Library Board President Stephen Daniels, a veteran of 23 years on the board who was most recently reappointed this fall.

Daniels declined my repeated requests for an interview, suggesting by e-mail that I should consult the state statute — library board members are appointed by the village council, but do not answer to it and the council cannot remove a member of the board, he pointed out — or to take my questions to Bowen.

However, the board is the policy-setting body and, as such, is in the best position to explain the context of its decisions. According to minutes from the January 14 meeting, trustee Dave Humpheys suggested that “when the community is under stress, the library should share the stress.”

On the other hand,  Humphreys continued, demand for library use goes up during periods of economic stress. “Both must be balanced in making budgetary decisions.”

Daniels is quoted in those minutes as saying that to make even a symbolic cut to its budget, the library would have to reduce hours. “However, being prudent and careful is important.”

Apparently, the library had resisted adjusting its tax rate in order to reap the windfall of rising property values during the fat years, choosing instead to increase its levy only enough to maintain services.  According to the July 22 minutes, the library has planned to increase the property tax levy — the source of about 93 percent of its revenue — by five percent annually.

“This increase has been sufficient to meet the needs of the library and the library has always asked for no more than the amount that is needed to do its work and provide good services,” according to the minutes.

Due to its January to December fiscal year, the library also must carry forward a reserve that amounts to nearly 50 percent of its budget in order to cover operations until the June tax proceeds come in.

It also faces other challenges, including a significant hike in the employer contribution to the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund.

More information may be forthcoming at tonight’s village council workshop meeting, at which  Commissioner Bob Barnett, council liaison to the library board, is expected to make a report in response to concerns voiced by other commissioners.

Wrestling with a $4.5 million budget shortfall, the commissioners have occasionally appeared frustrated that the library is increasing its levy by $150,000 while the village slashes programs, jobs and services.

“We appoint people to the board. Maybe we have to look at who we appoint there,” Commissioner Sean P. Durkin told the DGreport.

“People need to ask those questions,” said Commissioner Marilyn Schnell.

I’m trying commissioner. I’m trying.

While the fest’s affordability has been the focus of discussions during the current budget season, there have been rumblings going back more than a year that the event is due for revision.

Responding to a June recap of this year’s HF, one village official told me the size, format and content of the festival were all be fair game for future discussion.

Several commenters agreed that it is time for a change where Heritage Fest is concerned — sentiments that were repeated in the aftermath of the Downers Grove Hospitality Alliance’s very popular “Taste of Downers Grove” event, which many contrasted favorably with the festival.

Judging from the feedback on this site, many residents feel Heritage Fest has become a victim of its own success — it was named best festival by West Suburban magazine in 2008 –with generic food, carnival rides and throngs of “outsiders” detracting from the local flavor.

Long before village commissioners floated the concept of  a “right-sized” festival this fall, commenters and others were calling for a scaled-back event that would feature local restaurants and promote community esprit, possibly around a theme.

As for the financials of the festival, those are less clear. In a comment today, former commissioner Martin Tully says “the annual budget goal of Community Events staff has been to ensure that HF breaks even each year, which it historically has done and then some.

“For example, 2009 HF expenses were $367,000 while revenues were $394,000,” Tully wrote. ” Thus, while there is a sizable outlay of dollars needed to make the event happen each year, it is probably the only Village-sponsored event that typically generates off-setting revenues that allow it to basically pay for itself.

“By comparison, other treasured Village events such as the annual Independence Day Parade and fireworks generate little to no revenue and are basically just an outright expense to the community.  The point is that changes in the scope or occurrence of HF may very well be in order given present economic conditions, but it should be understood that simply eliminating the event altogether is unlikely, on a net basis, to free-up any significant dollars to be used for other things,” he wrote.

However, at the Nov. 3 budget meeting, Commissioner Bob Barnett put the annual cost of the festival at $161,000, and others on the dais questioned whether the event was financially sustainable in its present form.

“If we’re going to have Heritage Fest, it’s going to have to be completely different than what it’s ever been,” said Mayor Ron Sandack, saying the village will need to rely on volunteers, corporate sponsorship and partnerships and other means to continue events in the future. “I just don’t think we should be having those festivals if we’re cutting certain programs.”

Commissioner Sean P. Durkin also called for sponsorships and “whatever creative ideas that department can come up with.

“Does it need to be a three-day event? Can it be a two-day event? We can look at that area, especially since there is so much labor involved,” he said.

In fatter years, the festival may have been all but untouchable, given its standing as a community centerpiece and the generally tendancy to not fix what ain’t truly broken.

If today’s leaner budget is prompting discussion of possible changes, whether in size or format, some of us wouldn’t argue the point.

What do you see as the future of Heritage Fest? Cast your vote in the right sidebar.

The reporter, Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, had previously covered the D99 board’s attempt to draft new nepotism guidelines that would block Boyle’s participation in closed-session deliberations concerning the teachers’ contract and benefits. Boyle’s brother is a D99 teacher and coach.

Yesterday’s story highlighted Chaplin’s repeated requests for receipts detailing $4,600 in office supplies purchased by the water commission in March and April 2008 and O’Connell’s ongoing attempt to get information about insurance benefit costs for district administrators, among other examples of officials who have been frustrated in their efforts to question the status quo.

Tactics outlined in the story  — requiring officials to file FOIA requests, censuring unruly members and erecting other obstacles to limit access to public records — may be less effective once a revised Freedom of Information law kicks in on Jan. 1 allowing the Illinois Attorney General to impose fines on public boards and commissions that “willingly and intentionally” deny access to such documents. The law also will reduce the allowed time frame for responding to FOIA requests from seven to five days.

If the examples outlined by Ahmed-Ullah are any indication,  the FOIA act overhaul shouldbe welcomed with open arms by advocates of government transparency and access.

What comes through over and over again in the story is the enthrenched belief,  on the part of  elected officials no less, that probing the activities of government and requesting access to public information is somehow wrong, bad or destructive to the fabric of the community.

Several of the quotes had a very familiar ring, for example:

“They’re trying to tell me what I can say and obstructing me from getting the documents I need to perform my duties as an elected official.”

“She’s been asking for more and more   documents and become distrusting of the administration. It starts to look like you’re micromanaging the place and looking to say ‘gotcha’.”

“As a board member, she’s entitled to receive information; that was not the problem. She was not following protocol in meetings and requesting information. She was going in on her own to the (district) office and disrupting their work.”

And another quote, from the executive director of the Citizen Advocacy Center in Elmhurst, which accurately summed up the local response to elected officials who don’t embrace the majority viewpoint:

“Inevitably, someone who is a concerned citizen ends up throwing their hat in the ring to run for public office to effect change. But in the last five years, we’ve been seeing a growing trend of public bodies taking action to squash out board members who are a political minority and make them as ineffective as possible. They may be on the board, but now they’re getting shut down.”

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that many of the clashes described in the Trib article concern school board members.  Long-time observers of the various local boards and commissions understand that school boards seem to operate under a different cultural standard — one heavily influenced by the tenets of the Illinois Association of School Boards, an interest group lacking statutory authority.

While respectful behavior,  a willingness to compromise and a constructive attitude are key traits for board members of every stripe, serving the public — its interests and concerns — is their first and foremost responsibility.

Commenting about the new FOIA law, which was drafted by her office, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said it would bring the quest for government transparency “out of the Stone Age.”

Given the amount of attention transparency has received locally in the past three years, it should be well past time for recalcitrant members of local boards to go along on that ride.

Cronin, an Elmhurst Republican,  kicked off his campaign in July. Schillerstrom has thrown his hat into the ring for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, while Durkin has applied for appointment to the District 3 county board seat recently vacated by Kyle Gilgis. Got that straight?

“There’s certainly no secret about the fact that I support Sen. Cronin’s effort…I think he’ll make a great County Board Chairman,” Sandack said. “So I was there introducing Dan to some Downers Grove residents and helping him get a few signatures on his nominating petitions.”