Careful note is to be taken of OP presidential candidate Gary Schwab’s for-the-record (but more than that, I think) correction in the Wed. Journal comment page, where yesterday’s item was linked. He recalls that it was trustee candidate Glenn Brewer who said in a 3/13 forum that he “couldn’t tell if there was a problem with permits until he had more data” and wasn’t kidding when he said it — not presidential opponent David Pope.
This is interesting, in view of Brewer’s 3/19 observation, discussing Forest Park’s Madison Street, that this extremely successful half-mile stretch “has empty storefronts too” — a comment that advanced discussion not a whit and demonstrated unsettling unfamiliarity with the scene and subject.
This prompts the question (does not beg it, as many say, misusing a useful phrase), what else doesn’t Brewer know and has not bothered to bone up on since his selection as VMA-endorsed candidate four months ago? And: How much does he want an election-day victory and what does he think it takes for success as a trustee?
He has the Wednesday Journal endorsement as providing “a much-needed African-American voice to the village board.” Sounds racist to me. Brewer has headed the regional housing center board and served on the Bellwood plan commission. But what does he know about Oak Park.
Meanwhile, Reader A. in an email questions my interpretation of It Takes a Village clerk candidate Sharon Patchak-Layman’s emphasis on organizing “networks” of parents and others as political. I “make it sound as though there is something underhanded in this,” she says, noting the traditional role of village clerks in finding and recruiting people for various commissions.
A. is right about that, and the reader can judge from what I report whether Patchak-L has more than that in mind.
I have sat in on the “commission on commissions” meetings (Community Involvement Commission is the official name), by the way, and found it fascinating in part for its display of highly qualified citizen volunteers who come before it to be interviewed. It’s the clerk’s commission, yes; she attends its meetings, and though I missed evidence of a prominent role by the clerk in recruiting volunteers, I happily concede it.
However, the Patchak-Layman matter and her candidacy gets a kick in the rear in today’s Wednesday Journal in a letter from Carol Browder, who recalled her being censured a year ago by the high school board on which she serves, for “for violating her oath of office and that Board’s policies” — for “having a conflict of interest by “advocating” for a parent who has filed a complaint with the state against the school” in the Wed. Journal article she cites, of 1/29/08.
Adding insult, Patchak-Layman’s opponent in this race, Theresa Powell notes in another letter in today’s Journal that P-L takes a position on board activity — how often to enter executive session — that as clerk she would have no say about.
“The village clerk is not the party who determines when the board should meet in executive session. There simply is no need to politicize the clerk’s role.” She adds, tellingly, “The clerk is charged with handling both public and confidential matters of the board in a professional and appropriate manner. . . . by statute, [the clerk] has authority over official village records and elections and administers the office that handles many of the licenses and permits issued by the village.”
I must add, being careful not to protest too much, that I beat Powell to it with my public allegation of political activity being planned inappropriately. Nor was I aware of her letter, being not in contact with her campaign.
Blithe Spirit 
In the course of working on the new Manual for Chairs of Commissions as part of the CIC, I had to speak with both sitting Village Clerk Sandra Sokol and Village Attorney Ray Heise on the subject of closed meetings (a.k.a. executive sessions). The position which you and Ms. Powell share involves a simplification which is simply untrue.
The minutes of a closed meeting — yes, there are minutes in a closed meeting — are handled in different fashion from those of an open meeting. These differences are part of state law through the Open Meetings Act, which also specifies which topics are allowed to be discussed in a closed meeting. (See the Illinois Compiled Statutes: 5 ILCS 120/2.)
A clerk who knows that closed meetings are being held on subjects which are not allowed, and who allows this to happen is actually an accessory to a crime, and could — at least in theory, although I am unaware of any cases in which this has occurred — be prosecuted. The state provides training to governmental clerks so that they can identify these subjects.
This is not a question of village policy, it’s a question of state law, and you and Ms. Powell are wrong to treat it so lightly. (The link on my signature is to the Open Meetings Act on the Illinois General Assembly’s website.)
LikeLike
Oops, horse of another color here, from what I assumed was the issue. John Franklin, an It Takes a Village (non-VMA) trustee candidate, makes the substantive point that the clerk is more than a clerk, statutorily speaking. She has to be an independent judge in the executive-session issue and can be a guilty bystander.
I must say this is probably news to many people, and I cannot say I have read his linked relevant statute to agree entirely with his point; but I can say that it’s refreshing as can be to find argument by substance not slogan. Nor is it surprising to hear it from John Franklin, whom I have observed at CIC meetings, which he attended as a member, and have judged him to be reasonable and well, I mean clearly, spoken.
Two years ago, the issue in village board elections was heavily weighted in direction of basic competence, this time far less so. The critical opposition has Franklin and Gary Schwab, for instance, neither of whom would make the board look either laughable or ignorant.
LikeLike