Orland Park Village Clerk issues another "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" type notice

Some government officials just don't care, or maybe they don't want to care I guess. It really makes Orland Park Village Clerk David Maher look ridiculous when he cites the Illinois Open Meetings Act right after stating at the top of a public meeting notice:

"NOT FOR PUBLICATION"

or

"NOT FOR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION."

as he has done, again, at the very top of the most recent notice.

I've tried my best to explain to the clerk that the words he uses impact the spirit and the literal intent of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

Here is the latest notice from the village about, by the way, a Special Meeting of the Village Board to be held Thursday July 24 at 6 PM to discuss the 2008 Village Budget.

Some government officials are stubborn and just don't care what the public has to say. It's arrogance and a comfort level in office that no public official paid on the dime of taxpayers should experience. They should always be considerate of public opinions. And, more importantly, a good leader is always ready to admit when they are wrong.

Apparently, Orland Village Clerk David Maher just doesn't want to admit he is wrong. (By the way, he never acknowledged the statement in the letter he received from the Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan that her office "advised" that his office stop using that language. So they just came up with a new version.

To me, the issue is one of principle. Maher could meet the basic requirements of the Illinois Open Meetings Act simply by posting a notice at least 48 hours in advance of a special meeting and that's all he has to care about. And, apparently according to his understanding of the law, he can put whatever words at the top of the notice because the Illinois Open Meetings Act simply does not address the placement of words and phrases that might be interpreted (clearly) as discouraging public notice and publication of a notice.

Oh well. But to the news.

VILLAGE TAXES GOING UP?

Regardless, the real issue is the budget and the tax increases that have taken place over the past few years in Orland Park, and the details of how the village plans to overcome the $4.8 million budget shortfall in the upcoming budget. (See the post below this one on how back door taxes have gone up in Orland Park since at least 2004).

Not that any of the village officials care what you, as a citizen really think anyway -- with the exception of one village trustee and one employee, whom I won't name as that would just make them pariahs at Town Hall.

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

Ray Hanania
www.OrlandParker.com

Village Clerk David Maher misleads public on letter from the Illinois Attorney General

As much as I try to give public officials who work on our dime the benefit of the doubt, I have to say I am shocked and dismayed over the conduct of Orland Park Village Clerk David Maher.

As you have read below in earlier postings, Mr. Maher asserts that he received a letter from the Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan stating, and quoting his letter,

"The Illinois Attorney General has exonerated the Village of Orland Park and in its letter to Mr. Hanania wrote, 'While general public notice is the underlying purpose of the Act’s notice requirements, there is no evidence that the conduct of the Village in this case violates any of the Act’s provisions.' "

No, Mr. Maher, it turns out you took that sentence out of context. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office didn't "exonerate" you at all. In fact, they never used that word. What they said was there was NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE of a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act by your office.

In fact, the main part of that statement IN CONTEXT relate to another part of the letter and the remainder of that paragraph that you intentionally excluded, which states clearly:

"While the Act does describe certain information that must be contained in a public notice of a special meeting of a public body, it is silent with respect to any additional language or information a public body might include in its posted notices. It is unclear from the information you provided why the Village included such a statement on the posted notice and we would certainly advise that the Village avoid such language in the future, in order to prevent confusion."

The Village is only required to post the notice and THAT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE in my expressed concern regarding this matter. My sole concern is and remains that the village may have intentionally added the language "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" to discourage the media from posting it immediately on their web sites so that the PUBLIC (not the media) would be able to attend. As it turns out, no media published any information prior to this unprecedented special meeting which was of significant importance to the citizens of Orland Park.

The Letter from the Illinois Attorney General, which I received the DAY AFTER the village allegedly received a letter (my letter has no notation that a copy was sent anywhere), emphasizes that ONLY because there is not more information about why the village did what it did, the Illinois Attorney General concluded it was NOT a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

But I will repeat what the letter did say that Mr. Maher conveniently excluded from his letter to me, we reached me the day before the Illinois ATtorney General's Letter:

"we would certainly advise that the Village avoid such language in the future, in order to prevent confusion."

Mr. Maher gave this ridiculousa explatation (see earlier posting below) that the intent of the phrase "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" was:

"This phrase is used to let the media know that paid space is not being purchased for publishing the notice."

Normally, a village will state at the bottom of a letter or posting "Not paid for by public funds." And the purpose of the phrase "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" is clearly to discourage the media from pre-publicizing the event so that members of the public who are not in the media -- and the Illinois Open Meetiings Act is, according to the Illinois Attorney General, designed to inform the media AND the public of public meetings -- could attend the meeting.

No one in the public knew.

Who is playing a game here?

Ray Hanania
http://www.orlandparker.com/

Here's the link to the letter sent to me by the Illinois Attorney General:

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's Letter to me dated July 9, 2008 and received July 12, 2008, the day after Mr. Maher received his letter: View Letter?

Illinois Open Meetings Inquiry held hostage: Day 1

I did receive mail on Friday, July 11, 2008, and wanted to show that I did not receive a letter or a response from the Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan on my July 1, 2008 INQUIRY about the special notice by the Village of Orland Park of June 27, 2008.

Madigan did notify the village Clerk David Maher, according to his email and letter attached, that she did contact him to EXONERATE him (even though there was no accusation).

Here's a photo of my mail from Friday:
















I'll do this every day until I get a letter from Ms. Madigan. Hopefully, I might get one BEFORE she leaves office to run for Governor of Illinois.

Maybe I'll get the letter, tomorrow. (See the post below for details about the Illinois Open Meetings Act issue, and the Village of Orland Park's response quoting Il. Attorney General Lisa Madigan's letter to them -- not to me)

Ray Hanania
http://www.orlandparker.com/

Village Clerk responds to possible Open Meetings Act violation

Well, you didn't expect Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is going to run for governor soon, to criticize the 19th Ward -- er, the Village of Orland Park for their unusual, unprecedented non-public public notice about a last-minute special meeting to discuss the surprise, unexpected deficit in the upcoming village budget, did you?

Orland Park Village Clerk David Maher sent me this letter, which I gladly publish and share:

July 11, 2008

Mr. Ray Hanania
Orland Park, Il 60462
Dear Mr. Hanania:

Please permit me to respond to the July 9, 2008 column entitled, "Village of Orland Park may have violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act." This particular column concerns the Village issuing a meeting notice on Friday, June 27, 2008 for a meeting of Orland Park’s Board of Trustees on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.

The Village of Orland Park did not violate the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. We followed the 48 hours notice, as required by the Open Meetings Act, which states, "Public notice of special meetings, except a meeting held in the event of a bona fide emergency, must be given at least 48 hours before such special meeting, and the notice must also include the agenda for the special meeting. The actions of the public body, while not required to be specifically detailed in the notice, should be "closely related" to those matters set forth in the agenda for the special meeting."

The Village followed the stipulations of the act, announcing the meeting 48 hours before it was convened and included the agenda for the meeting. This notice was publicly posted in the lobby of the Village Hall, on the Village’s website and was distributed to the media.

As for the "not for publication" notation on the notice, this was not an "embargo order" as assumed. This phrase is used to let the media know that paid space is not being purchased for publishing the notice. This same notice was distributed to all of the media outlets that have filed requests with the Village of Orland Park to receive such notices.

The Illinois Attorney General has exonerated the Village of Orland Park and in its letter to Mr. Hanania wrote, "While general public notice is the underlying purpose of the Act’s notice requirements, there is no evidence that the conduct of the Village in this case violates any of the Act’s provisions."

Assistant Public Access Counselor Amanda Lundeen further wrote, "…the Act only requires that the notice be posted, not that the Village ensure that it be published." And, Assistant Attorney General Lundeen closes with, "As such, it does not appear from the information provided that any violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred."

Sincerely yours,
David P. Maher
Village Clerk
Village of Orland Park

While I appreciate Clerk Maher as being a great public servant, and while we often agree on so many other issues, permit me to disagree on this one. Mr. Maher has come up with a very interesting explanation that, as a political reporter for some 30 years, I have never heard uttered once:

"This phrase is used to let the media know that paid space is not being purchased for publishing the notice."

In my opinion, that is ridiculous!

If that were the intent of the phrase they typed in UPPERCASE letters "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," they would have said it in English, "The Village did not pay to have this published."

And, if Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is expected to run for governor and needs Orland Park's support, doesn't want to criticize the village, not even to urge them to change their language on future postings, that doesn't change the fact of the matter at all.

The village did achieve what in my opinion was their real intent, to minimize public participation at the meeting at which they disclosed the shortfall in the next fiscal budget. Announce a "special meeting" on a Friday. Put at the top of the notice "NOT FOR PUBLICATION." And then spint he story that this isn't a "deficit" or a "shortfall." It's just that this year's revenues don't meet the expenses we have for next year. Ooops!

But, the important thing, is that we will be watching the village conduct regarding the budget and how they hope to cover the budget deficit.

What the village has not responded to yet is 'what was the rush?' How is it that only a few months after such a glowing overview of the village's budget made by Mayor Dan McLaughlin at the Orland Park Area Chamber of Commerce, the village is suddenly 4 percent short in revenues to cover budget expenditures, a situation that requires them to cutback services to off-set the shortfall?

I haven't heard an answer to that.

Still, Clerk Maher is a responsible official, taking the time to answer the public's concern. Public accountability is about forcing government officials to address issues even when they don't like the issues or they don't want to address the issues. They work for us. We, the public, don't work for them.

Ray Hanania
http://www.orlandparker.com/

PS: I am glad that the village got a response from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office about an "INQUIRY" that I sent the Attorney General asking if the Attorney General would look at the issue, BEFORE I actually got a response from the Illinois Attorney General. It just goes to show where the Illinois Attorney General's priorities are at, I guess.