Residents say their city council violated open meetings law

The Illinois Attorney General’s office is investigating several complaints against Collinsville, each alleging that city leaders violated the state statute governing open public meetings last month.

Since the July 11 City Council meeting, six requests for review have been filed, which formally ask Public Access Counselor Sarah Pratt to determine whether officials acted in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

City Manager Mitch Bair has said publicly that legal counsel determined the city was “fully compliant” with the Open Meetings Act during the July 11 meeting. Since the investigation began, Bair said he and all other city employees would not comment further on the pending legal issue.

Press Secretary Annie Thompson said the Attorney General’s office is in contact with Collinsville about the complaints.

“Our process is ongoing at this point,” Thompson said in an interview.

The requests for review, some of which include multiple allegations, were released to the News-Democrat by the Attorney General’s office with requesters’ names removed. Three Collinsville residents — Rob Dorman, Mary Drumm and Robert Thiel — each said they filed a request for review.

Among the allegations are:

▪  That the rules for publicly addressing the City Council are too restrictive. (Two of the requests for review, Dorman’s and Thiel’s, made this allegation)

▪  That the city improperly denied a records request under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act for video of a recess that took place during the July 11 meeting because a deliberative process took place. (One of the requests for review, Thiel’s, made this allegation)

▪  That the July 11 meeting agenda was not available on the city’s website within 48 hours of the meeting. (All six of the requests for review made this allegation)

▪  That meeting agendas are posted in a physical location that is not accessible to people with disabilities. (Four of the requests for review, including Dorman’s, Thiel’s and Drumm’s, made this allegation)

There are three things the public access counselor could do as a result of the investigations, according to the Attorney General’s website: decide that no further review is necessary and that the allegations are unfounded, mediate the dispute between the member of the public and the public body, or issue a binding opinion resolving the matter.

‘Unreasonable’ rules

Dorman and Thiel alleged that Collinsville’s rules for addressing the city council during its meetings are “unreasonable” and “unreasonably restrictive,” respectively.

Dorman’s complaint stated that the rules allow the meeting chairman, Mayor John Miller, to “interrupt speakers when he does not like hearing what is being said.”

“He interrupts speakers regularly,” Dorman’s complaint states.

Under the Open Meetings Act, public bodies are required to give people an opportunity to address officials, and public bodies can establish rules governing that input.

Collinsville has nine rules, including one that states “the meeting chairman customarily will warn the speaker or members of the audience of inappropriate behavior through one warning use of the gavel. Subsequent inappropriate behavior shall result in the immediate removal of the responsible parties at the discretion of the meeting chairman.”

Dorman’s complaint includes a link to a video of a portion of the Oct. 13, 2015 city council meeting as an example of an interruption.

“I’m just asking them to clarify if it’s unreasonable or not; I believe it is,” Dorman said.

During the October council meeting, Dorman read and commented on a public statement Miller made in July 2015.

In the statement, Miller was addressing allegations that he received truckloads of free dirt for his backyard and did not pay for the dirt until after a city employee complained.

During his public comment, Dorman quoted Miller, who said in the statement, “I have done nothing wrong.” Miller cited his military service during the Vietnam War, his tenure with the Collinsville Fire Department and his years serving on the city council.

“So what?” Dorman said publicly in response to the statement. “If you’re corrupt, you’re corrupt.”

Miller banged his gavel.

“If you want to charge me with corruption, the chief of police is right back there,” Miller said during the October meeting. “Don’t stand in this meeting and call me corrupt. If you have reason to believe that I’m corrupt, go to the police department and file charges.”

More recently, Miller interrupted Dorman’s comments during the July 11 meeting when he again referenced Miller’s statement. Thiel’s complaint alleges that the mayor’s interruption on July 11 was a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Miller banged his gavel during the meeting and asked Dorman to sit down. When Dorman refused, Miller called on Police Chief Steve Evans to ask Dorman to leave.

Dorman refused again, and Miller called for a recess. According to a draft of the July 11 meeting minutes, Miller announced the recess at approximately 8:10 p.m. Then, City Clerk Kim Wasser paused Live Manager, the software that broadcasts video and audio of the meetings live on the city’s website.

The meeting reconvened after approximately three minutes and the broadcast resumed. Each meeting is broadcast live and recorded in an archive on the city’s website. Recording from the recess is not included in the July 11 meeting’s archived video. That video cuts from Miller’s call for a recess to the reconvening of the meeting.

Thiel states in his complaint that if the “missing footage” of the recess were destroyed by the city, “there may be some criminality involved.”

Miller has since apologized for the meeting. He spoke about it during the city council meeting that followed the July 11 meeting.

“I’m sorry for the last meeting, but there are certain times when you just take enough,” Miller said publicly. “I did not infringe upon his right to speak because when we came back from recess, he finished his comments. We did not violate the Open Meetings Act, and I had every right to gavel and call a recess.”

Councilwoman Nancy Moss spoke out when the mayor interrupted Dorman’s comments at the July 11 meeting, objecting, she said, to someone “being removed because they criticized elected officials.”

“The rules say (refrain from personal attacks on) ‘appointed’ (officials). And maybe we can have a dialogue about that at some point because we were elected. ... We’re elected to take the heat. ... I’ve been called names up here,” Moss said. “That’s why we get the big bucks, I guess.”

Moss was concerned, she said, that people would be afraid to speak before the council.

“People are going to be angry. They’re going to be frustrated,” she said. “... I just don’t want to see us cross the line on that.”

Councilwoman Cheryl Brombolich said during the same meeting she does not think residents are deterred from addressing councilmen.

“I think it’s been pretty obvious that no one’s afraid to state too much of anything here,” Brombolich said. “Councilman (Jeff) Stehman himself was blasted; I think he was called dumb and a couple other things in a meeting where he said that he was not prepared to vote on something because he didn’t have time to review his packet.”

Thiel’s complaint states that the city violated the Open Meetings Act when a quorum of the city council allegedly deliberated outside of a public or closed meeting during the recess at the July 11 meeting.

The complaint states that the city denied a records request for a copy of the video from the recess at the July 11 meeting. The city allegedly said in response to the request that it could not release the records because a deliberative process took place.

The public access counselor has been asked to review the records request and the city’s denial.

‘Phantom’ agenda

The system that the city uses to post and archive all of its meeting agendas, minutes and videos malfunctioned before the July 11 meeting. Council members Moss and Kypta argued that because the agenda packet was not available for them or for residents to review electronically, that the meeting and all of the items requiring a vote should be postponed.

The other three council members — Stehman, Brombolich and Miller — voted against delaying the meeting. Moss and Kypta then voted against each item on the agenda that evening, except for two motions, to go into a closed session meeting and to adjourn the regular meeting.

All six of the requests for review asked the public access counselor to review whether the city violated the Open Meetings Act by not continuously providing the agenda on its website.

The city addressed the issue in a post to its Facebook page, stating that legal counsel did not believe it had violated the act:

“The requirement is an agenda is posted continuously for 48 hours prior to the meeting at the location of the meeting. This requirement was met. Further, if the city has a website, the agenda shall be posted on the website for the same 48 hour period and this requirement was met. This requirement is for the AGENDA and not the full contents and supporting reports and information for each item. The City provides the supporting information as a courtesy to the public above the statutory requirements of the OMA.”

The city also posted a link to the agenda to Facebook five hours before the start of the meeting.

Moss said she did not think it was fair to vote on agenda items “covering millions of dollars” at the July 11 meeting.

“I’ve been on the council for 11 years, and I’ve never been asked to vote blind on what I call ... a phantom agenda: it came, it left, it came back, it left,” she said.

Four of the requests for review also stated that the physical location where the agenda is displayed is in an area that is not accessible to people with disabilities. Agendas are posted on a bulletin board on front of City Hall at the top of a set of stairs. There is also an elevator at City Hall.

Some of the requests for review alleged that the agendas should actually be posted on the door where the meetings take place, City Council Chambers, rather than at the City Hall entrance; both share an address.

Brombolich, who was a city clerk in Collinsville before being elected to the council, said publicly during the Aug. 8 city council meeting that agendas are not required to be posted “on the door that you enter.”

“There is a bulletin board out front. ... That is where the agendas are required to be posted,” she said.

Drumm, one of the requesters, said posting the council agenda at City Hall does not make sense to her.

“The only time I ever go up the steps to City Hall is to pay my water bill,” she said.

This story was originally published August 16, 2016 at 11:49 AM with the headline "Residents say their city council violated open meetings law."