Loading...
2009-08-03 - Village Board Regular Meeting - Minutes 12195 08/03/2009 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS,50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE,ILLINOIS ON MONDAY,AUGUST 3,2009 CALL TO ORDER President Hartstein called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Roll call indicated the following present: President Hartstein;Trustees Braiman,Glover,Berman,Trilling,Stone and Sussman. Also present were: William Brimm,Village Manager;William Raysa,Village Attorney;Ghida Neukirch,Deputy Village Manager;Scott Anderson,Director of Finance;Katie Skibbe,Assistant Director of Finance;Art Malinowski,Human Resources Director;Rick Kuhl,Superintendent of Public Works-Operations;and Joseph Tenerelli,Village Treasurer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Glover,seconded by Berman,to approve the minutes of the July 20,2009 Regular Meeting.Upon voice vote,the motion was unanimously declared carried. Moved by Glover,seconded by Berman,to approve the minutes of the July 20,2009 Pre-Board Traffic Meeting. Upon voice vote,the motion was unanimously declared carried. Moved by Glover,seconded by Berman,to approve the minutes of July 27,2009 Finance Committee Meeting. l Upon voice vote,the motion was unanimously declared carried. �J Moved by Glover,seconded by Berman,to approve amendment to the minutes of the June 1,2009 Regular Meeting.Upon voice vote,the motion was unanimously declared carried. The 5th full paragraph on page 12162 currently reads as follows: • Mr.Raysa stated that this Village Board has the absolute total discretion to determine whether that Special Use is needed and warranted;the Village Board does make the decision as far as whether the facts meet the criteria. When amended,the 5th full paragraph on page 12162 will be replaced with the following paragraph: • Mr.Raysa stated that the Village Board must make its decision based upon whether the facts presented to it meet the criteria for a Special Use. WARRANT#1126 Mr.Tenerelli read Warrant#1126. Moved by Trilling,seconded by Glover,to approve Warrant#1126 in the amount of$1,384,800.05,authorizing payment of bills listed. Upon roll call,Trustees voted as follows: AYES: 6—Braiman,Glover,Berman,Trilling, Stone,Sussman NAYS: 0—None Motion declared carried. L 12196 08/03/2009 VILLAGE PRESIDENT'S REPORT President Hartstein announced that the MDA Boot Drive sponsored by the Buffalo Grove Fire Department to benefit Muscular Dystrophy will be held at Lake Cook and Arlington Heights Roads on Friday,August 21,2009, and on Dundee and Buffalo Grove Roads on Friday,August 28,2009. Buffalo Grove is always one of the top contributors in the state and he urged everyone driving through those intersections to generously contribute. President Hartstein reported on the recent meeting of the Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus,at which Governor Quinn and Senator Durbin were featured speakers. Governor Quinn discussed the budget and confirmed that he will again be asking for a tax increase. President Hartstein urged residents to contact their legislators,both state and national, to share their thoughts on any of the current issues before the legislature. Red-light cameras and video poker were among issues that were discussed. TRUSTEE REPORTS Trustee Stone announced that the next Little Limelight Café will take place on Friday,October 16,2009 at Tripp School,and urged all interested youth performers to attend the auditions on Friday,October 2,2009 at Tripp School. Further information may be found at bgartsna,vbg.org Trustee Stone reminded everyone in the community that help is available for victims of domestic violence. The Buffalo Grove Police Department employs a social worker who is available to provide guidance and resource information to anyone needing assistance. Trustee Stone reported that the Village has compiled a number of resources for individuals seeking jobs or Job Assistance. Further information may be found on the Village website at vbg.org. Trustee Stone wants to ask a question regarding procedure that has come about and concerns her and concerns the community. The procedure is regarding the filing of the request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. When that takes place,for most FOIA requests,it is usually something that anyone in the Village can fill,because it is just information about some topic that is not an issue of concern or worry regarding something like we are having for the gambling issue. What people are concerned of is this,and it doesn't appear to be illegal,but it is a matter of procedure that she thinks has to be addressed in our community. When the request is filed,the first time it went through procedure where our manager,Bill Brimm,disseminated it to the other heads of departments and they all did their searches,and then gave it to him and he went through it and got rid of duplicates and that was the final result that was given to the Tribune and the Buffalo Grove citizen. Well,when 213 documents were missing,which was not discovered by the Village management,the second FOIA,that gratefully President Hartstein did call for, was done halfway in the right way,in her opinion,and our IT man was the one who ran it, which is the appropriate way,she would think,so therefore there was not a redundancy of documents because he was pulling from the same server. But the documents still end up in the Village Manager's hands. Now her concern about that is, hypothetically,first of all for the security and safety of any village manager,a manager can lose their job any day on a 4-2 vote,so if there is anything that comes up in that research that would be concerning about let's say Trustees, that could be a tense situation for a village manager. You hope that,in the long run,everyone is going to do the right thing,but everyone is human and that would be a hard position to be in. But additionally the question is that when there is a concern in the community about something like gambling or any big issue,it is not only of the Trustees,but it would be of the management as well,and in Trustee Stone's opinion,to have Village management handling those documents,she believes,is the wrong thing to do and the question is what can we do because this is what happened in this process. Trustee Stone has spoken to the Attorney General about this process,and it is a `./ glitch and it is a concern. So she is asking what we can do immediately to make sure that things like that,for the management's protection and for the protection of the citizens,if there is ever a question or concern,that is the whole Act,and the whole spirit of the Freedom of Information Act is to be sure that everything is going the way that it is supposed to go. For that reason,she asks how quickly we can resolve something like that and if there are any suggestions. President Hartstein stated that this is in the nature of new business in terms of procedure,but we certainly can address something if someone has some concrete suggestions to make. However,the one thing that he does want to stress is that he has full and utter confidence in our Village Manager,who is our chief administrator of the Village of Buffalo Grove,and it is his responsibility to administer and see that requests that come in to the Village of Buffalo 12197 08/03/2009 Grove are handled in a full and complete and proper manner. President Hartstein emphasized that with regard to the issue that Trustee Stone alluded to,after it was learned that there had been some documents that were missed,in coordination with staff,President Hartstein and the Village Attorney,staff proceeded immediately to try and tighten up the procedure so that it would be effective immediately. In fact,the number of documents that were subsequently produced after an IT sweep,included many documents that were produced that fell in the time period after the date of the FOIA request,because of our commitment to make a full and complete disclosure. The Village Manager explained at the last meeting what had been done to correct the situation. President Hartstein stated that he has full confidence in the Village Manager. If Trustees or anyone else has any suggestions that they would like to make or feel that are appropriate,he would urge that they make those as part of a proposal to be discussed fully by the Board J or with staff to the extent that the Board feels there is a need for further change or refinement of our process. We have done our utmost to ensure that we are doing a full and complete review any time that we get a request from any citizen or any publication or anyone who seeks public documents. Trustee Stone stated that,on 99.9%of issues,it is of course appropriate that the Village Manager oversee them. Most requests are about things that do not have to do with issues that impact the Village of such great magnitude. When it does,and it actually puts in question the Trustees and the management,she does not think it is appropriate that the management at that point would be involved in it and have the documents at the end,and she thinks at that point it would be appropriate to bring in a FOIA officer that was objective and possibly from a community several communities away that has no connection here,along with IT on big issues like that. She thinks this is also for the protection of the Village Manager and of the citizens,because if there is ever anything,how would anybody ever know if you didn't do it that way. This is just her idea and she hopes that it will be considered in the future or immediately. President Hartstein stated that if anyone wants to pursue such an idea in the future,it can be brought before the Board,and he for one can say that he believes that our staff,specifically the Village Manager,is quite capable of handling any and all such requests that come before the Village of Buffalo Grove,and he has full and utter confidence in him in administrating any requests that come before our Village,and he does not believe that we need the assistance of any other party. Trustee Braiman stated that he believes engaging a FOIA officer from outside the Village is a bad choice to make. There is information on our computer system that is confidential in nature with regard to personnel and other confidential issues,and to allow an outside person not within the organization to look at that information would be very detrimental to the organization. Trustee Braiman stated that he also has every confidence in the world with Mr. Brimm and his staff,and he believes that,if Mr.Brimm believes it is necessary to go to an outside source,that should be his decision to make,since it is his reputation that is on the line. Trustee Braiman believes that it is appropriate for Mr.Brimm to make that decision rather than having someone else make that determination on his behalf. President Hartstein stated that he will not entertain further discussion on this topic because it is inappropriate at this time. If someone wants to entertain a suggestion under New Business to be discussed properly in the future,it will be discussed at that time. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Mr.Anderson reviewed the Six-Month Financial Report,details of which are contained in the Village Board Meeting Agenda Item Overview that he prepared,as well as his memo to Mr.Brimm of July 17,2009. Mr. Anderson stated that staff and department heads have done an excellent job in managing their own budgets to adapt to a changing revenue environment. President Hartstein commended and thanked staff for holding the line in these difficult times. Trustee Trilling noted that one of our most visible assets in the Village is our road system,and the condition of those roads is paramount. One thing that residents can do to help us maintain our roads is to buy gasoline within the Village. The amount of money paid to the Village is a per gallon charge,so by buying gasoline within the Village, you are contributing directly to the Village coffers, which then can improve our roads. 12198 08/03/2009 Trustee Braiman thanked Mr.Anderson and staff for this report,as he was fearful that it could have been much worse,and he believes it is fairly good news. The fact that the Village is diversified in revenue sources is a tremendous help. The Board and the residents appreciate the work that staff has done with revenue and expenditures. Mr.Brimm stated that staff has run July numbers,and the positive trend continues. The situation continues to hold its own, and he commended Mr.Molinaro and his staff. They are just a few dollars away from break-even,despite the challenge to the entire industry. In answer to a question from President Hartstein,Mr.Anderson related that Moody's opted to keep the Village at a �•/ AA1 rating. Moody's actually contemplated moving the Village up to a AAA rating,which is unheard of in this environment. Current sales tax challenges are about the only thing that kept the Village from that AAA rating,and staff believes that there will be a chance for AAA in the near future. President Hartstein noted that rating is a tribute to Mr.Anderson and the entire financial department and the entire staff. Trustee Berman noted that things aren't wonderful,but he does want to join in commending Mr.Anderson and Mr. Brimm for solid planning and for a timely response from the management team. It certainly seems that Buffalo Grove is in reasonably good shape despite all of the adverse news on economic issues. One of the primary reasons for this is because,during the good fmancial times,the Village accumulated a reserve fund,and under the careful guidance of Mr.Brimm previously,and Mr.Anderson currently,those resources have been carefully shepherded to allow Buffalo Grove to weather the storm with far less impact than many of our neighbors,and the credit needs to go to our staff who have been good caretakers of the public's interest in the finances of this Village. Mr.Brimm noted that the Monthly Management Report for June,2009 has been filed to the e-library on the Village website;there were no questions on the report. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE President Hartstein asked if there were any questions from the audience on items not listed on the agenda;there were none. CONSENT AGENDA President Hartstein explained the Consent Agenda,stating that any member of the audience or the Board could request that an item be removed for full discussion;there were no such requests. The Village Clerk read a brief synopsis of each of the items on the Consent Agenda. Moved by Braiman,seconded by Trilling,to approve the Consent Agenda. ORDINANCE#2009-46-PRAIRIE HOUSE Motion to pass Ordinance#2009-46,amending Chapter 5.20 Liquor Controls,Class A,Prairie House. ORDINANCE#2009-47-EDWARD HINES LUMBER Motion to pass Ordinance#2009-47,approving Amendment No.2 to an Agreement with Edward Hines Lumber Co. ORDINANCE#2009-48-TACOS EL NORTE Motion to pass Ordinance#2009-48,amending Chapter 5.20 Liquor Controls,Class E,Tacos El Norte. 12199 08/03/2009 ORDINANCE#2009-49-NORTH RIVERWALK DRIVE Motion to pass Ordinance#2009-49,amending Title 10 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Municipal Code(Parking Restriction on North Riverwalk Drive). ORDINANCE#2009-50-VERNON LANE Motion to pass Ordinance#2009-50,amending Title 10 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Municipal Code(repealing No Parking designation on Vernon Lane and Hapsfield Lane). �./ RESOLUTION#2009-31 -FUND BALANCE POLICY Motion to pass Resolution#2009-31,amending Fund Balance Policy. Upon roll call,Trustees voted as follows on the Consent Agenda: AYES: 6—Braiman,Glover,Berman,Trilling,Stone, Sussman NAYS: 0—None Motion declared carried. ORDINANCE#2009-51 -ADVERSITY VOLLEYBALL Moved by Sussman,seconded by Berman,to pass Ordinance#2009-51,Special Use: Adversity Volleyball, 1701 Leider Lane—approval of a Special Use for a recreation facility in the Industrial District. Trustee Sussman reviewed the proposed ordinance,details of which are contained in the Village Board Meeting Agenda Item Overview prepared by Mr.Pfeil. Mr.Raysa noted that,on page 3,Section 2.B.the date has been left blank.Mr.Hulett noted that an appropriate date would be 60 days from this evening. Trustees Sussman and Berman agreed to add that date to the motion. Upon roll call,Trustees voted as follows: AYES: 6—Braiman,Glover,Berman,Trilling, Stone,Sussman NAYS: 0—None Motion declared carried. President Hartstein welcomed Mr.Hulett and Adversity Volleyball to the Village. Mr.Hulett thanked everyone involved in this process. The staff and the Board made this a very easy process,and it was a pleasure to work with them. ORDINANCE#2009-52-ILLINOIS VIDEO GAMING ACT President Hartstein stated that this particular ordinance stems from a concern expressed by the Village Board to ensure that nothing comes in under the wire,or no one proceeds,based upon the State law that authorizes gaming facilities in liquor establishments for the purpose of funding the capital program. The Village has been advised by representatives of the Gaming Board and representatives of the State and the Illinois Municipal League,that it will be some time before regulations are finalized,perhaps up to one year. The Village of Buffalo Grove has the authority under the Act to either approve or prohibit such devices in establishments. There is also authority for a referendum. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to ensure that,in the interim,no establishment in Buffalo Grove will have the authority to have gaming devices installed in their facility without the approval of the Village of Buffalo Grove. Moved by Berman,seconded by Braiman,to pass Ordinance#2009-52,addressing the Illinois Video Gaming Act. Upon roll call,Trustees voted as follows on the motion: 12200 08/03/2009 AYES: 6—Braiman,Glover,Berman,Trilling, Stone, Sussman NAYS: 0—None Motion declared carried. PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLE Mr.Brimm reviewed the proposed vehicle purchase,details of which may be found in the Village Board Meeting Agenda Item Overview prepared by Mr.Whalen. Moved by Braiman,seconded by Berman,to authorize bid for a new vehicle for the Public Works Department— �� Water Section,in accordance with the RFP dated 7/23/2009 included in Board packets. In answer to a question from Trustee Braiman,Mr.Brimm stated that staff will investigate the possibility of a used vehicle that could be obtained for a substantial cost savings. Because of the specific requirements for this vehicle,Trustee Trilling wants to be sure that there are enough bidders to bid on this type of vehicle. Mr.Kuhl confirmed Trustee Trilling's request. Upon roll call,Trustees voted as follows: AYES: 6—Braiman,Glover,Berman,Trilling,Stone,Sussman NAYS: 0—None Motion declared carried. VIDEO SERVICES Moved by Glover,seconded by Sussman,to amend contract for Take One Video Services to include Website Videos,per Board discussion at the Finance Committee Meeting,with costs not to exceed a one-time set-up fee of $525,and post-production cost of$275 per meeting,or approximately$6,600 annually,and if the meetings went longer than three hours,an additional cost of$40 per 30 minutes. Trustee Braiman stated that this issue has been discussed for many years,and the only hindrance was the cost. Back in 2008,the costs ranged from$20,000 to$11,600,so the costs have become much more reasonable,and he thanked and commended staff for continuing to monitor the issue. President Hartstein stated that this is a tremendous proposal before the Board. One of the things the Board is always striving to do is increase the access to the community as to what is happening at Village Board meetings.This will give everyone at home an opportunity to go on to the Village web page and view the Village Board meetings any time at their convenience. Upon roll call,Trustees voted as follows on the motion: AYES: 6—Braiman,Glover,Berman,Trilling,Stone,Sussman NAYS: 0—None Motion declared carried. OPEN MEETINGS ACT Trustee Braiman read the following statement: Over the past several months,Trustee Stone,either directly or indirectly has accused members of this Board,and me in particular,of violating the Open Meetings Act,as well as being unethical. I have been reserved in my public responses to date,hoping that she would move on and that we could begin to work together toward resolving critical issues before the Board. Unfortunately,these unwarranted and slanderous attacks continue and,therefore,I find myself left with no alternative but to respond and clarify the record. 12201 08/03/2009 Specifically,Trustee Stone has alleged that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act through a string of e-mails begun by an e-mail that I sent in response to the Village Manager's inquiry of April 29,2009. A recent series of articles in the Tribune alleged that the e-mails could or might be considered a violation. I understand that publishing an article that claims that the e-mails were not a violation doesn't sell papers,but while overall the article did not allege that the e-mail did actually violate the law,it left the impression that something may be amiss. I do not believe that the article completely and reasonably explained either the law or the circumstances related to the emails. First the public needs to understand the criteria established by the legislature regarding open meetings. A meeting as defined in the Act is any gathering,whether in person or by video,audio conference,telephone call,electronic means,or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication,of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business. Accordingly,there are four requirements—a gathering,contemporaneous interactive communication,and a majority of a quorum of the Board,for the purpose of discussing public business. On April 29,2009 the Village Manager sent an email to the Board and the newly elected trustees regarding the attempt by Bev Sussman and Lisa Stone to delay the vote on the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would set the criteria for a possible special use for an OTB in the Village. Two days later,on May 1,2009,I responded to the Brimm e-mail by stating that I saw no reason to delay the vote. It was my belief then,as it is now,that all trustees,either veterans or newly elected should prepare themselves for the meeting and there was no just cause for the delay. That e-mail was sent to Brimm and Stone with copies sent to the rest of the Board, Sussman and the Village Attorney. Shortly thereafter,Stone sent a reply to all in which she implied that the Board was detached and didn't communicate with the residents. At that time,she had not been sworn in and was not a member of the Board as defined by the Open Meetings Act. One day later,and again three days after Brimm's initial inquiry,Trustee DeAnn Glover responded to Lisa Stone's comments about communication by identifying how the Village communicates with its residents and asking Stone to be"a little less offensive"in her tone. On May 2,2009 Stone,still not an official member of the Board again responded to DeAnn which appeared to be a personal attack against DeAnn partially based upon DeAnn's withdrawal of her initial endorsement of Lisa during the campaign. This e-mail also went to the entire Board and others. There was more discussion about communications generally,but there was no response to any of the comments of either Brimm's initial e-mail or my May 1,2009 e-mail. On the evening of May 2, 2009,approximately three hours later,former Trustee Bruce Kahn sent an e-mail addressed to DeAnn,but sent also to the rest of the Board asking her to respond to Lisa's e-mail that Kahn thought was written by Lisa's husband,Gary. No mention was made to any other issue. The following day,on May 3,2009,Lisa Stone responded to Bruce with copies to the rest of the Board. That e-mail did not discuss any Board issue or dealt with the initial Brimm e-mail or my e-mail,but rather again appears to be personal attacks against Bruce. One of the most critical issues necessary to find a violation of the Open Meetings Act is that the communication(if any)was contemporaneous. The Act does not define the word contemporaneous,therefore,under legal construction,one must look at the plain language. The Webster Dictionary defines contemporaneous as existing,occurring,or beginning at the same time. Clearly,when one examines the time periods between each of the e-mails between the then current members of the Board, they were not contemporaneous. The time period from the Village Manager's first e-mail to my e-mail was two days. The time period from my e-mail to DeAnn's email was one additional day. The e-mail from Bruce Kahn to DeAnn was hours later. Clearly,those three e-mails between three members of the Board,which extended for well over a day,were not contemporaneous—not at the same time. That in itself puts the issue to rest,as the Village Attorney has indicated. Another critical issue necessary to establish a violation of the Act is that the alleged discussion was for the purpose of discussing public business. The second e-mail,that being DeAnn's,is not responsive to my e-mail,but rather is pointed to Stone's e-mail and begins a new string of communications. Even a cursory review of the contents of the three e-mails clearly indicates that the subject being discussed did not involve public business,but rather was an unfortunate discussion about personality conflicts. If anything,the Board should be embarrassed that the pettiness and sniping found in the e-mails has been disclosed to the public.They are not a matter of public discussion or public debate. An inquiry has been made by Stone to our Village Attorney asking whether there was an Open Meeting violation. In a written statement he has opined that there was no violation. Mr.Raysa is an extremely qualified and well respected municipal law attorney. He has been engaged in the area of municipal law for over 30 years and has recently been named as one of Illinois' Super Lawyers in his field. Unfortunately,since he did not give Stone the answer she wanted,she has chosen to ignore his opinion. 12202 08/03/2009 What is quite interesting is the fact that Stone is the one pushing this issue. She is the one who is insisting that there was a violation and that members of the Board acted unethically. She is the driving force behind this apparent and manufactured lv, controversy. Now,she may deny the claim,but her actions speak volumes. Her actions resulting from the fact that she cannot accept the approval of the OTB and of her desire to run for higher office—Village President. The e-mails she contends were violations occurred in early May. Since that date,Trustee Stone herself has sent the following e-mails to the entire Board of Trustees and in some cases to staff members,as well: On May 14,2009 she sent an e-mail to the Board,the Village Attorney and staff suggesting that the June 1,2009 meeting be held in a larger venue to account for the"unprecedented turnout." By the way,only approximately 135 people attended the meeting, far below what she had anticipated. On May 30,2009 Stone sent an e-mail to the entire Board and various staff members again about preparing for what she anticipated to be a large turnout at the June 1,2009 meeting. On June 8,2009 Stone sent an e-mail to the entire Board regarding her concerns about an external audit of our Information and Technology Department. On June 12,2009 Stone sent an e-mail to the entire Board and 14 staff members regarding the number of times other Trustees have called the Village Manager at home or after hours and striking out at Trustee Steve Trilling. We'll get back to that later. On June 12,2009 Stone sent another e-mail to the entire Board again about the phone calls and Trustee Trilling. On June 30,2009 Stone sent an e-mail to the entire Board regarding a technology malfunction that prevented Channel 6 from broadcasting Village Board meetings. On June 30,2009 Stone sent another e-mail to the entire Board,again relating to the channel 6 outage. On July 4,2009 Stone sent an e-mail to the entire Board regarding the time line for the creation of an ethics ordinance and again inquiring about any financial exposure should a lawsuit be filed against the Village or the OTB. On July 5,2009 Stone sent an e-mail to the entire Board regarding the proposed ethics ordinance and whether the Village had any financial liability should the OTB not open because of a lawsuit being filed. On July 26,2009 Stone sent an e-mail to the entire Board plus staff regarding an outage on Channel 6. On July 28,2009 Stone sent an e-mail to the entire Board regarding an IT audit. What is particularly concerning is that it occurred within minutes after the Finance Committee meeting,a public meeting which had adjourned. On July 30,2009 Stone sent yet another e-mail to the entire Board. That is 12 emails sent by Stone to the entire Village Board and at times staff regarding Village business. Trustee Stone,do you really have the right to sit there and attack others? Will you continue to imply wrong doing by members of this Board and question our integrity? Are you really complaining about our actions which have been determined by the Village Attorney as being appropriate? Can you,in good conscience,claim that we have acted unethically when your actions appear to be much more objectionable? Isn't that being just a bit disingenuous? Have you been transparent? Or,don't rules apply to you? You speak of transparency. You use that term as campaign rhetoric and as a weapon against the rest of the Board. Let's look at the record. You have been the force behind the efforts to overturn the OTB vote and the e-mail issue. Now you'll say a concerned citizen is behind this,but at the least you are acting in concert with her. You have had knowledge of facts that would only be available through inside information. Take responsibility,own up to your actions,be transparent. You have complained about my e-mail,but haven't disclosed to the public your numerous emails that may have violated the Open Meetings Act—be transparent. You seek an ethics ordinance. We presently have an ordinance which requires filing of a disclosure statement by May 30`h of each year. You were the last to file,doing so over two weeks after it was due,and only after repeated requests by staff—is that transparency? Is it proper and in compliance with the law? In response to the restriction in contacting staff after hours formally passed by the Board,you publicly claimed that you had only called staff 12203 08/03/2009 one time on a Sunday to determine whether you needed to read a document in anticipation for the Board Meeting. Is that really truthful? First, if you receive a document in your Board Meeting packet,wouldn't you assume that you needed to read it? Couldn't you wait until Monday morning to ask,rather than harassing staff on a Sunday? Or, if you hadn't alienated the more senior members of the Board,you could have called any one of us. But, let's be transparent. In fact,prior to our formal restriction you called staff after hours at home or on their cell phones on at least a dozen occasions. You called the Village Manager at least six times,the Deputy Village Manager six times, as well as Department heads on numerous times. Some of those after hour telephone calls were even made after our formalized restrictions. The most objectionable acts being the phone call to Village Manager Brimm on a Saturday evening at 10:15 P.M.,and keeping Brimm at his office after hours on a Friday from 5:00-7:OOp.m. You have attempted to rationalize your actions by claiming that you are being discriminated against since"you knew"that other Board members call staff at home all the time. That simply is not true. In 18 years I have never called staff at home about Village business. I have asked other members and none of them have called either. You claim that the Trustees who voted in favor of the OTB were unethical since they had made up their minds prior to the meeting. I think that I explained the genesis of my decision fully at the meeting.I admitted then and I admit now that I had a preconceived notion as to how I was going to vote,but still maintained an open mind. There is nothing wrong,nothing illegal,nothing unethical about having preconceived ideas about a project or making up one's mind prior to a meeting. In fact Lisa,didn't you? Hadn't you not only made up you mind well before the meeting and well before the criteria for the OTB were established? Didn't you even reach out to other Villages to support your position? How were your actions different than any of ours? I at least had an open mind at the meeting and listened to both sides—you on the other hand failed to even consider any opinion other than yours. So Lisa,how transparent are you? This Board and its more senior members have a history of transparency. We were one of the first communities to televise our meetings on cable. We weren't required to do so,but we did it because it is good government and we wanted to be transparent. We place our agenda on channel 6 and have various announcements—not because we are required to do so,but because we want to be transparent. We have an interactive web site that has our agenda,including staff reports,and minutes available to the public,not because we are required to do so,but because we choose to do so. We communicate in numerous ways,all to inform the public. We have hosted breakfasts and other meetings in order to create a dialogue with residents. We have insisted that developers meet with neighborhoods so as to better understand their concerns. Every one of us are out in the community talking to residents every day. None of our telephone numbers are unlisted—people can communicate with us as a group or individually daily. You speak of transparency,we practice transparency. At the first meeting of this Board upon the swearing in of the three newly elected members,Trustee Berman offered an olive branch—he acknowledged the difficult campaign and offered eloquent words hoping to put the campaign behind us and move forward together. Unfortunately you refused that attempt and immediately attacked Board members. We again are at a crossroad. It is up to you Lisa,you choose which road to take. You can either stop undermining the actions and ordinances of the Board,stop attacking Board members and staff,stop making inferences and innuendos about the integrity of Board Members and ethical violations,stop alleging that we have engaged in illegal activities,all of which are unfounded,and begin to forge relationships with Board members with the hope of creating an atmosphere of cooperation and work in a collaborative manner,for the benefit of the Village,or you can continue your disruptive behavior and continue to be a divisive force,thereby prohibiting the Board and staff from effectively accomplishing its goals for the betterment of the citizens. The decision is yours,Lisa,I hope you choose the former,but I fear you will choose the latter. Trustee Stone made the following statement: "I am happy that you brought this up. It will be good to get this off my chest. I am flattered that you think that I have such influence that I could actually drive a force that could get the Tribune to put in such time and effort and file a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Seriously,I thank you for thinking that I have that kind of persuasion. Obviously I do not. As far as the individual citizen,I know from the beginning when I said should we be concerned if someone were to come forward, I know Trustee Braiman felt that was me. I said to him, 'no it is not—wish I had the idea',but it was somebody else. There are a lot of people in the community that have been very concerned from the moment of May 4,2009 when they witnessed a meeting that filled the chamber and not one person in the community came forward in a room filled with people,not one came forward and said they wanted the OTB. They lined up telling the Board why they didn't want it on May 4,2009. Watch the meeting;you'll have it streamlined soon so you'll be able to watch it;on May 4, 2009,not June 1,2009. 12204 08/03/2009 When this string of e-mails occurred,which by the way are the e-mails that were missing from the FOIA request from the Tribune,somehow those particular e-mails,the ones that made up the alleged violation,were the ones that were missing. How is still a mystery, since it was requested that all of the management search their computers for various e-mails that have certain trigger words,and they were missing from everyone's search. Very,very odd to me. But that whole process was,at the very least,concerning. I would think that it would be concerning to everybody,but it certainly was very concerning to me given the whole onset of how this came about as of May 4, 2009. On April 29,2009,when Bev and I were alerted that we would be voting on May 4, 2009,we requested the two week delay,and we were given the two week delay. It is not that we couldn't study Trustee Braiman,we could study. It is that we had four days to connect with the community because we are supposed to be voting representing the community. So to have four days to be told that we are going to be voting on an ordinance of gambling,which on May 4,2009,I believe the Board was telling the public that it really wasn't gambling,and now we all know how much it wasn't gambling. We now having gambling in Buffalo Grove. This is why we wanted the time was to connect to the community. It wasn't that we couldn't research and find out about OTB as far as statistically all around the other suburbs,which turned out to be very controversial. It wasn't good news that we were reading about. We wanted to connect with the people. And that brings me to the string of e-mails that you talk about Trustee Braiman,as to the nature and the attacking the Trustees,so I'm so happy that you brought that up. I would absolutely suggest that the Village share the e-mails so the people can fmally see what really took place. After Village Manager Brimm sent an e-mail saying that we do have the two weeks,and we were very relieved to know that,then all of a sudden it was put back on or there was a confusion as to whether it was always there,whatever,it was back. Manager Brimm wrote to us saying we had the two weeks,then the time was gone,we were no longer having the two weeks. One of the pieces was going back on the May 4,2009 vote,which was a text amendment. So with that,we responded,and I said please give us the time. Bev and I are communicators. We're that type of personalities. The people in the community don't know about this,therefore,we need the time to communicate with the people. There is nothing nasty in that e-mail. There is nothing sarcastic. There is nothing facetious. It was simply stating please give us the time. To that e-mail,Bev Sussman wrote `I wholeheartedly support what Lisa is saying'. Also in response,I got an e-mail from Trustee Glover saying'Oh,the great communicator',being very snippy to me about me saying that I am a good communicator and that Bev was a good communicator. And then she went on to list all of the many ways that the Village has communicated the OTB to the Village,and she talked ` about E-News,the Blotter,the Village newspaper. So I responded to her saying`Trustee Glover,what do you know v about?' That is what I said and I was sarcastic because I was in utter shock that she listed all of the ways that had not been used for the communication. So I was blown away,and yes I did say`Trustee Glover what do you know about? You do not know that we are not using the communication vehicles and you didn't know that children were dying and becoming addicted to heroin in our community.' And that was how I responded,and yes I was really irritated,and I articulated it in what I wrote. And to that,Trustee Kahn,writes in and he says `Trustee Glover be sure to write back to Gary',suggesting that I wouldn't know how to write or speak,and he copied the Board. Then I had the opportunity to finally write back to Trustee Kahn,and I won't even go into what I said,but I let him know exactly how I felt about his behavior. To the point though of the alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act,that you say is not because our Attorney Raysa said it is not. And I don't doubt that Attorney Raysa is a very skilled and knowledgeable attorney,but one would have to consider a couple of things: that the Tribune apparently went to the Citizens Advocacy Group in Elmhurst,and their attorney. I have never met the person and never talked to the person,so with you saying it is my connection,she apparently found it to be a complete violation of the Open Meetings Act. She was not tentative about it. She said it was a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Apparently the Herald I think went to an attorney that says it appears to be,and if I remember correctly,he is with the Associated Press. I can tell you that I,having been a legal research consultant,I know many,many attorneys and the attorney that I went to,and I am not going to say his name,because you'll say it is a biased opinion anyway,but he was Governor Thompson's counsel,he was on many ethics panels and he is a pretty reputable attorney in the political world,and he believes it to be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Now when you say contemporaneous,that it would have to be at the same time,you have to consider the spirit of the Open Meetings Act,and what government is trying to prevent from happening. They want government to always be discussing law or decisions of law in the public,and if contemporaneous were to mean a certain time,then it would be quite easy to create the way around that. It would mean that when someone sends an e-mail,be sure to wait three hours and fifteen minutes because if you do then it is no longer contemporaneous. So to say that the e-mails came in in a scattered pattern and that means that they are not contemporaneous certainly would be easy to get around contemporaneous simply by waiting a certain number of hours. So the conversation that took place,even Attorney Raysa said it meets the quorum and it meets the group or the chat,I forget the other issue that he said,and he said that it doesn't meet two of the areas—contemporaneous and 12205 08/03/2009 maybe the subject. Trustee Braiman you said we should be ready to vote in four days. You give examples of why we should. You told of other situations where people were voted into office and had to vote quickly on important issues. I don't think they were issues quite with the societal impact of gambling. I know the tax issue was a big one, but this had a real controversial feeling to it,gambling. And you say that we should have been ready. It wasn't just a matter of being ready. It was for the reasons we needed to connect with the community. But you spoke then to the tax issue. So you're talking to actual revenue—the Triple Crown,where you didn't want to lose the funds to the Triple Crown. So if you're suggesting that that topic of e-mail was not something that should have been in the public eye,I disagree with you. There are attorneys that disagree with you. My pleading for the time,and Bev also saying we needed the time,and Trustee Glover saying we put it on all the vehicles of communication that we had not put them on. I think you would all admit to that,because on May 5,2009,after the meeting,you put them on �./ everything,so you must have known it was the right idea. She just didn't know,so she was citing things that just were not so. Then Trustee Kahn responding and saying'be sure to write Gary back' meaning Lisa but she doesn't know how to write or speak or do anything,she's inept. I'm inept,but yet I can get the Tribune to file a Freedom of Information Act. It's interesting. You guys have me all over the board. I'm too good or I'm not good enough. That whole chat that went on was something that,think of it this way,had the citizens been able to be a part of that conversation and watched that meeting take place,you would have been told by the citizens of the community. Trustee Glover would have been told'no Trustee Glover,we have not been alerted to any of the things that you just said that we have'. Trustee Braiman I think the people would have told you that they would have liked us to have a I couple of weeks longer to have spoken to them since they didn't know about it. You saw people line up from school boards,from clergy,from doctors and lawyers. You saw so many people line up. I think you knew people were surprised by this. So I think,had that electronic chat meeting taken place in the public,we would had a much different outcome. Also some other things that I want to respond to you. Attorney Raysa,when he gave his opinion on this,that he said it is not a violation of the Open Meetings Act,and all the other attorneys were not hesitant to explain any reasons why or what they thought. Attorney Raysa would not respond to this,and I have asked him. I called him personally and I said'tell me your MO—tell me your thinking', and I wasn't being facetious to say so. I wanted to understand his thought process. Just like when a lawyer or a judge makes a decision,they most often,every time I've ever seen,they give an explanation to their decision,so you follow along and understand how they got to their conclusion. He would not. He would only recite the definition of the Open Meetings Act elements. I kept saying`I know those elements',but tell me how you don't think it reached that criteria. So that was quite frustrating. As far as calling staff,that's a great one,because it's not like I don't have other things to do,but when I was voted into this position,I can't believe what I found. And it is my nature that if something doesn't seem right,I do address it and I question it. Manager Brimm offered me his cell phone and his home phone. I thought everyone had it because I figured that's just how it goes. He said I can call him if I ever have questions. And these various things that came about, let's see,I'm voted in on May 4,2009,and they bring in gambling,and it is real controversial,and I needed to ask some questions and it was really pressing. And the one call that you talk about that so urgent,it was really urgent. We were having an Executive Session the next day. I had never been to an Executive Session,and I wasn't certain if this whole huge document was for the next day because it wasn't on the agenda. I even called Bev Sussman and I asked her if she knew,and she thought we didn't need to read it,but we actually did. That's how confusing it was for us. Maybe as an 18-year veteran,you can't remember when you were first sworn in. I was not trying to call and nag Bill Brimm. I said 'do we need to read it?',and he said 'yes you do'. So it was a good thing that I called,and it was on a very important issue,so that's just the reason that I called. And the other calls that have taken place were equally on all different issues,and I never said I called once. I said I had called three times at that time. I didn't say once. And the other times that I called were not to shoot the breeze. They were about issues that I really,really wasn't sure what to do or I had an important question. One of the things was I had found out that Comcast had not played the meetings to all the viewers for 16 days straight,a 16-day blackout. Now if you think that I was out of line to call Manager Brimm,I think the citizens would actually be thankful to me that I cared and I am on it. I am quick and I try to resolve things as fast as I can and I would think that that is a good thing. Now if you think that 16 days wasn't long enough,I don't know, I think that when your community is not getting their government meetings,I think you want to have a Trustee that is on it and that calls and gets involved and gets action taken. And that's how I operate. If you think that is the wrong thing,apparently you do because then you made a resolution,which is what Trustee Trilling sat and read,there is a whole resolution about my behavior because I 12206 08/03/2009 called Manager Brimm three times so they made a resolution to control my calls. My calls were necessary. It is interesting. I'm voted in on May 4,2009,and I had never even heard the word violation of the Open Meetings Act, `./ never heard it in my life. After May 4,2009,I think about eight days later or so,Bev and myself were oriented by Attorney Raysa and Bill Brimm,and we were told everything about the violation of the Open Meetings Act and how you have to be very careful about that,and it is a very dangerous thing. Never participate in it. Never go out to lunch and sit with a quorum. That's the big issue. I'm telling you what we were told. Maybe I need to be re- educated,but let me tell you what we were told. If we are ever with elected officials,and there are three of us,and we are at Buffalo or whatever,we cannot be sitting together without permission or alerting the public,something of that nature. You guys can correct me later. I'm sure you will. The idea was that whether it is electronically or publicly,you cannot be with elected officials because the appearance of impropriety that you may be discussing �./ issues that are going to be voted on in the future or at any point that it cannot be discussed because that is what government is about. That is the whole point of having a transparent government. It is an issue that is nationwide that people need to know what is happening in government and the only way that we can have it is if we have laws. While those laws may not be comfortable,they are real and you do have to follow them. When I sent the various e- mails that I have sent,dating back from before I even knew what the word Open Meetings Act was,they were not issues that we were voting on Trustee Braiman. So there is a big difference. If I am sending e-mails that Comcast isn't working,or the IT issues,there is a big difference. You know I save my e-mails,if I send Bill Brimm,and this is the purpose why I would copy the Board when I would write about the different issues that were coming up,for instance we had the blackout and I had a question.Trustee Braiman on a different e-mail that he had responded to everybody,and it was contrary to what Attorney Raysa had told us. I always send an e-mail to either Bill Brimm or Elliott Hartstein,and I would copy the Board,and the point of copying the Board was so that they could see what I was writing so that they would understand the various issues that came up that I was concerned about. So it wasn't about, `let's start talking about a law that we're going to pass'. It's much different. It's apples and oranges. And also let's remember, I just had become a Trustee on May 4,2009. You're an 18-year veteran. Seriously,so to say that I'm supposed to know on May 4,2009 all of the rules,obviously as you can see,I'm learning the rules as we go. I quickly learned what a violation of the Open Meetings Act was because it was brought to our attention by Attorney Raysa,and I paid close attention to that because it appeared that it was a very illegal thing to do,and he warned us very clearly not to do anything like that because of the appearance of impropriety and because you cannot discuss votes outside of the public eye. I just wanted to address those points,and when you ask me,I am at a crossroads right now. And believe me,every day I think to myself'is this worth it?'because this is not a lot of fun to be struggling like this. And then I realize that I have no choice because I do live in an honest way. That is just how I live,and perhaps too honest for some. I am very direct and I couldn't feel comfortable right now to walk away,while it might be easier in my life because my gosh,this is really getting a little bit much for me. But I think that this Board has been together for so long,that I don't even think you know what you are doing is inappropriate at this point. I think it has just become so customary that this is how it goes. These conversations that go on on e-mails. Trustee Braiman we have gotten pollings during the month,right after we were taught what the violation of the Open Meetings Act was,we got two pollings,one was a more serious issue and one was not. Right away,you responded to everybody with your decision. That is actually what educated me on the Open Meetings Act,so thank you for that because it demonstrated what Attorney Raysa was saying not to do,and that's when I e-mailed and said 'is this what we are supposed to do?' It was completely perplexing because we were just taught what not to do,and then you actually did it. Trustee Raysa said it is not advised,and he shouldn't do it,but as long as no one replied,it saves him from it being a misdemeanor. You can ask Attorney Raysa. So that's why I wrote back and I copied the Board because I didn't want Trustee Braiman telling me his thoughts about a vote because we are supposed to vote independently. We are not supposed to be tainted by other's thoughts. And let me get back to one other important point,I clearly,clearly was against the OTB,there is no questions. I have no problem with you being for the OTB. The problem that I have is that it is one thing to have a position one way or the other. I think it was disingenuous on May 4,2009 when everyone acted like they did not have a position. Bev and I clearly had a position,and everyone else acted like they didn't have a position. The e-mails from the FOIA demonstrate that there was a solid position. Whether you want to call it that or not,when you are leading the petitioner and you are telling him how to get it passed and how to present it,that is a real solid position. That is the difference between what I think is wrong in government and what I believe that I took an oath to do. I will vote things honestly and clearly. I will not break the laws that we are told we are not supposed to break. I will say if I believe in something or not believe in something. I will not try to trick anybody. 12207 08/03/2009 There is a big difference in many of the things that you have said Trustee Braiman,so I guess this is just how you say it versus how it really is. I can only tell you that the crossroads that I am at,I hope you realize you are at as well. I am not going to stop my pursuit for truth and honesty. I really won't,so I hope that the whole idea of talking about votes electronically or however or wherever that this would come about that there would be a sudden acute gambling vote coming on May 4,2009. I hope you realize that did freak the community out,that nobody knew of it. There are even e-mails saying'who leaked' it. Who uses the word leak if it is something that is not secrecy. If the community saw all those e-mails,they would clearly,clearly understand why I have been sitting here for now two months carrying on about this. I don't mind if we vote on anything. I am only requesting and I will persevere that the votes go forward in the way that they are supposed to,the way that the law sets out,and that you don't try to interpret the law that makes it look otherwise. I would be happy to show the e-mails. In fact this is the most important part of all,let me just say the most important part of all,the e-mails that were missing from the FOIA documents that were put forward,there were 213 documents missing,no one would have known those documents were missing,those e-mails only came to light because when the citizen who filed the Freedom of Information Act, she tagged ones that she was concerned about and she showed them to me. There were like a thousand pages,but I only saw the ones that she was concerned about,and right away I saw that they were ones that I remembered the string,it's called the string or the thread,and they were the ones that had this very subject,we were arguing back and forth,so it was hard to forget actually,but I saw that she only had two or three of them. And I was looking,and the title of them is called Monday Agenda Update,and I thought'My God,where are the others?' And she said'no, no,there aren't any more'. I said`yeah,there are,I know there are'. I went and I checked my computer and certainly there were. I had them. I had saved them actually because it was somewhat cathartic to fmally tell DeAnn Glover and Trustee Kahn what I was feeling for those months. So I saved them only for that reason. But I had them,because otherwise I had emptied much of my computer because you have so many at home that you can't save everything. I went in to the Village Manager and I confronted him. I went with the citizen that had filed the FOIA, who already had an appointment. I joined her because President Hartstein had said the night before,if you remember that meeting,when everyone was saying `Trustee Stone get over this already'. I said'what do you mean get over it',the Tribune filed a Freedom of Information. President Hartstein said'if you know something,you must come forward if you feel something is wrong'. So I went home and I looked at my computer so well because I was thinking of those e-mails and I knew something wasn't there. I had them on my computer. I brought them into the Village. I showed them to Manager Brimm,and I asked why they weren't there,and he said he didn't know,they were deleted from his computer. That obviously caused concern for me. Then Mr.Brimm wanted to call Mr. Raysa,so Susan and I waited and clearly there were missing e-mails. Those e-mails just coincidentally of the 1,100 produced,the 213 that were missing,the three or four that I had were the ones that were the violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Maybe it's coincidence. Maybe it is. If so, it's an unbelievable coincidence. And the fact that three different manager levels had to produce those e-mails,so therefore when Manager Brimm has those e- mails there should have been three copies of each actually,but yet they all disappear. That was concerning to me, very concerning. I called President Hartstein and I told him my thoughts. I was concerned because I took an oath to do this thing honorably,and he had said to me if there is anything you know or think,and that was a heavy weight, so I told him just what I thought. I see you laughing at that Trustee Glover. I take this job very seriously,maybe too seriously,but I do it to the letter. I told President Hartstein what my concerns were. I told him of Manager Brimm's reaction,which was harsh,but Manager Brimm apologized to me soon after that. I said to President Hartstein `please make sure that you do a sweep of the system and make sure you do all backups' because it was concerning that the e-mails were deleted. I don't know what else to say. If e-mails are deleted,it's concerning to me. I know for instance that Ghida has 35,000 e-mails,and Trustee Brimm has 5,000 or 6,000. That did concern me. I can't lie about that. Maybe I don't know the ins and outs of this long enough to understand why,but it bothered me because when the government makes a provision so that the public can always know the truth,and then there are actually e- mails that are not produced,this is not a game,this is law. You cannot hold back e-mails. So therefore,now there are 213 produced,and what concerned me is that the request was processed only in a slightly different way. And it was processed in that way that now it took it off the shoulders of the individual managers,meaning Ghida and let's say Bill Raysa. Which,by the way,let me tell you that Attorney Raysa was in on that e-mail. He was copied on all of that. So when he finds that there was no violation,I actually don't think that it's even right that he would be the one judging it,considering that he was a party to that copy. We were all being copied on the same string of e-mails, so given that he is our attorney on retainer,he should not rightly make a decision as to whether it was a violation or not. I am not trying to be offensive to Attorney Raysa. Since he is an attorney and he was in on it,I don't think that it is possible to judge yourself in a violation situation. I'm not sure that's normal. Anyhow,the bottom line is that the second request that was filled finally went to our IT man,Rob Giddens. Rob Giddens, for 15 years has been our IT guy,and has never done a FOIA yet. This is the first time. I found that astonishing,astonishing why our IT man isn't the one that does the FOIA's,especially one this heavy,this heavy where it's being questioned as to what took 12208 08/03/2009 place and there is issues of violations of the Open Meetings Act. Finally President Hartstein did do it the right way. He said he wanted Rob Giddens to do it,a full sweep. The issue that I had that I mentioned earlier tonight,and for two reasons that it was important,is that a Village Manager, in case anyone doesn't know,and I know some of you certainly do know this,that's the one job that can lose their job in five minutes if voted 4-2. This is what I understood. Again,maybe I'm wrong about this too. I've understood that the Village Manager has that type of job that he can lose his job on a 4-2 vote,a simple majority vote.Therefore,I felt that,on this heavy issue,where we already had missing e-mails,we don't know why the e-mails were missing,but they were missing,the e-mails that were the components,the pieces of the violation of the Open Meetings Act,that I didn't understand that the Manager,because he could possibly lose his job,so therefore,you're putting a man under a lot of pressure if these are his friends and there is something wrong and he produces them." President Hartstein stated that Trustee Stone is impugning the integrity of the Village Manager,and he noted that she is out of order,and he will not allow anyone to impugn the integrity of any member of the Village staff. Trustee Stone noted that she will restate her comment because she did not meant to do that. She is trying to give the two scenarios."How can a Village Manager,not Bill Brimm,any village manager,if it is an issue of big importance magnitude where it is a question of how the Board acted and given that their job,any village manager's job,and I think all village managers have a job—okay then I don't know-it is a rumor that I heard that it is a 4-2 kind of thing —but that I felt that is a heavy burden on the village manager's shoulders,not that someone else should come and replace them for the FOIA,but that there would be a FOIA officer accompanied there to be sure that it was done in a way of pure integrity,for the reason that I just said that they are making decisions that regard the trustees that hold their job,and equally because you don't ever know if management is involved or not in any government in wrong doings. Obviously in government it can happen. I am not saying anything against Bill Brimm. He is very nice,but this is an official position,and that is why I felt that the second request was questionable because of what happened in the first request. To everything you said Trustee Braiman, I don't know. If you think that I am disingenuous about anything,you've got me all wrong. I never ever thought that this was all going to go on,but I can tell you that everything I do is honest,it is forthright,it is direct. I am certainly not trying to offend anybody. What I am trying to do is uphold law and government and justice. That is what being in government is. I think we ought to consider that there are a couple of attorneys that don't know any of us,and they have seen the situation and they find it to be a violation. So, for that reason,I just think that we all should be reflecting on what is going on here. It was a vote on gambling that turned this community upside down,and it had a lot of controversy to it. While you have always tried to put it on me,and everything is about me and making me look bad,I stepped into something and I never knew that this was all going to happen and I am just telling the truth,and that's all I'm doing. Believe me,it is not easy to sit here and have you guys all hate me like this,but I am just simply telling the truth of what happened,and because my oath was to the community and that is what I am doing." President Hartstein stated that he has made the determination that he will not entertain any further discussion on this subject tonight. He allowed this to proceed because of the fact that he hoped it was in the interest of Board catharsis. In fairness to Trustee Braiman,President Hartstein will allow a response to Trustee Stone, although he does not believe discussion is in order. Everyone has made statements,and that can be a healthy thing sometimes,but there will not be extended discussion. Trustee Braiman stated that he does not want to speak long. With regard to comments about other attorneys,he is confident in the opinion of our attorney. Trustee Braiman stated that he hopes that,with regard to e-mails that were not delivered on the FOIA,Trustee Stone is not suggesting that either himself or any other member of the Board did anything underhanded with them not being produced. That,to him,is extremely offensive,because nobody on this Board that he is aware of would do that. Trustee Braiman stated that he was not involved in any of the collection of any of the documents for the FOIA,nor did he see them until they were placed in the Trustee room several days later,and he really does take offense that Trustee Stone would even suggest that a member of the Board went through and removed documents or put pressure on Bill Brimm,because that is really what she is saying. Because of the comments made by Trustee Stone, it is clear which path she is willing to take,and that she does not want to work collaboratively with other Trustees. 12209 08/03/2009 President Hartstein stated that he realizes that we are at a very difficult juncture with regard to this Board in terms of some disagreement and animosity that emerges from time to time in the discussion. But in speaking to the entire Board at this point in time,because his goal and his job as Village President is to see that we move forward. Our job as a Village,is to address and serve the Village of Buffalo Grove. Each Board member was elected to serve the members of our community. President Hartstein stated that he is hopeful that everyone sitting on this dais will look deep within themselves,and every time that you come before this community,everyone will remember why they are there. Board members are not here to fight with one another.They are here to work for the community. We have an obligation—we do not have to be best friends-we do not even have to like one another—but we do have an obligation to the citizens of Buffalo Grove to move forward. It is his job as Village President each and every meeting,and sometimes of late it has been difficult and frustrating,to try and move our meetings along. It is obviously important for the Board to have vigorous discussion,and he encourages every member sitting on the dais to speak their mind,whatever they want,on the issues that are before the Village of Buffalo Grove. But he is hopeful that,after this Board catharsis which we have gone through this evening,it is time that Board members forget about the feelings and frustrations they may have. President Hartstein stated that he has a philosophy when it comes to serving in public office,and that is that you only look forward and you never look back,and he has a strong feeling that you do not hold grudges against people. This can be difficult,and it can be hard,and he can speak from experience as he has had his disagreements from time to time. However,he is guided by the principle that we are here to serve,and the only way we can serve is to try and look forward,and he urges everyone on this Board to look forward. President Hartstein cares about this community,and he knows that every single person sitting at the dais cares about the community,and that is why everyone chose to run for office. It is sometimes difficult,but it is time to move forward. The frustrations expressed by people in the community as they have watched our meetings is disheartening. The people of Buffalo Grove want us to move forward,and they want us to put the personalities and frustrations that we may have with each other behind us and focus on the business of Buffalo Grove. Since the Village Attorney was referenced in tonight's comments,and there were numerous comments that were suggested in the media relating to the opinions of different attorneys,President Hartstein asked Mr.Raysa to clarify any statements he would like to make with regard to any opinion that he has rendered to the Village of Buffalo Grove. President Hartstein emphasized that he has the highest regard for our Village Attorney who has served us for many years,and he is an individual who has a wealth of knowledge with regard to municipal law,and he has the highest degree of respect for him,and he knows that he works on an ongoing basis with all of his colleagues in the municipal field to be sure that he stays abreast of what is right and what is wrong and what we should be doing as a municipality,and that is the reason,under his tutelage,that President Hartstein is confident that at all times,this Village Board has done everything that it has done for the public of Buffalo Grove in a proper legal manner because we have done it under the guidance and advice of our counsel. Therefore,he would like to give our counsel a chance to respond to any of the comments that have been made relating to his opinions. Mr.Raysa thanked President Hartstein for the compliment. Mr.Raysa stated that the Board knows,as does the general public,that he has given a written opinion of July 8,2009 to two written questions that he received from Susan Glazer and Trustee Stone at a meeting attended by both of them as well as himself and Mr.Brimm. Mr. Raysa reviewed the ten e-mails that were given to him. The definition of a meeting has been stated tonight. That is straight out of the Open Meetings Act. Mr.Raysa evaluated the ten e-mails. Three of the e-mails were from sitting Trustees. Mr.Raysa gave his written opinion of the two questions. The first question being,was there a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Mr.Raysa stated that it is his opinion that there was not a violation of the Open Meetings Act because all four of the elements had not come together in those e-mails. The second question being,if there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act,what impact,if any,would that have on the two ordinances that the Village of Buffalo Grove passed,the first one being an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-track betting in the Village,and the second one granting a Special Use to Inter-Track Partners. Because of the answer to the first question being in the negative, there was no need to answer the second question because the second question became moot. Notwithstanding that,Mr.Raysa believed that he was duty-bound to answer the second question on the hypothetical that if there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act because of the e-mails,would the two ordinances that he just spoke of be void or invalid. Mr. Raysa stated that his opinion was negative. Mr.Raysa's e-mail is almost a month old now,as it was written July 8,2009. Mr.Raysa's letter opinion did not claim an attorney/client privilege. It is a public record. It is a public document. Mr.Raysa stated that he would be surprised if anyone does not have that document by now. Attached to his letter, were the ten e-mails,which totaled twenty pages. Mr. Raysa 12210 08/03/2009 purposely attached those e-mails to his opinion letter to make certain that,if any individual,attorney or non- attorney,did review the opinion letter,that individual would also have the same documents that Mr.Raysa reviewed. It has been almost a month since Mr. Raysa's written opinion,and he has not received any written opinion from any attorney in response to his July 8,2009 letter. What Mr.Raysa has seen is several newspaper articles that were referenced tonight by several of the Trustees,and he would like to quote some of those newspaper articles. At the meeting on July 7,2009 here at the Village Hall,Mr.Raysa was told that someone had opinions from two expert municipal attorneys. Mr.Raysa was never told who those two expert municipal attorneys were,but again,Mr.Raysa has not received any written response to his written opinion letter. What he has seen in the newspaper,and he will quote,and he will also emphasize certain words. In the Daily Herald article dated July 24, 2009 article written by Christopher Placek,"views vary on whether the ensuing e-mail discussion was a violation of the State's Open Meeting's law". In the same article the quote is"Susan Glazer said she has spoken to lawyers who think the e-mails may be in violation of the Open Meetings Act". These statements did not say that the two lawyers said that there was a violation,only that there may be a violation,nor did the article state the names of the two lawyers. The next quote that Mr.Raysa will give is from the author of the article,Don Craven,who was mentioned tonight, not by name but he was in the article. "Don Craven,the general counsel and interim executive director of the Illinois Press Association,and an attorney who concentrates in media law,said that the e-mails in questions may be a violation." Again,the highlighted words are Mr.Raysa's emphasis. Mr.Raysa stated that Mr.Craven does not state that there was a violation. Mr.Craven is quoted as simply saying that there may be a violation. Mr.Craven then continues"this seems to stray into some policy issues". Again,it doesn't say that there was a violation,but it seems to stray. The next quote is"those would seem to be matters of policy and not scheduling,which is concerning". Nowhere in this article does Don Craven state that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act based upon the information that Mr.Raysa provided. As an aside,nowhere in any of the articles does it state what either the reporter had or the attorneys who gave their oral opinions had,i.e.whether or not they had all ten e-mails. Mr.Raysa does not know whether they did or not. The next article that Mr.Raysa referenced was the Chicago Tribune of July 23,2009 by Jeff Long and Jeff Danna. This is a quote,"if three or more members of that Board are discussing via e-mail,it could be a problem"said Robin Ziegler,an Illinois Attorney General's Office spokesperson. Mr.Raysa stated that he agrees with that comment completely. It could be a problem. Mr.Raysa also agrees with Don Craven's comment that this matter is concerning. Mr.Raysa is also concerned. The next quote is again from Robin Ziegler wherein she said that"Ziegler noted that the Act does not prohibit sending e-mails to all members of a public board,but it is open to interpretation whether replies to those messages become discussions of public business, she said". Those are just a few of the articles that Mr.Raysa read. Again, Mr.Raysa's interpretation of Ms.Ziegler's comments is that this is not a black and white issue. For the sake of argument,there is no delimitation of contemporaneous in the Act. That is admitted. There is no case law interpreting contemporaneous or interactive,and that is the first thing that any attorney will look to is definitions in the Act and case law in the Act. Mr.Raysa stated that he appreciates the time given to him to help explain his position with regard to his opinion letter. President Hartstein stated that he will recognize Trustee Stone for the limited purpose of hearing what she has to say,but he hopes that it is brief and he hopes that it is something that does not impugn anyone's integrity. Trustee Stone stated that it is not impugnative at all. Trustee Stone stated that she wants everyone to know that she is hearing people say"move on—move on". People do not want her to speak. Trustee Stone thanked President Hartstein for acknowledging that she needed to speak. "Really, I know the pressure is great. Seriously,in the Village here,they don't want me calling any employees. It's very interesting. President Hartstein could you ask Attorney Raysa,when he chose those few,why he didn't chose the actual,the opinion of the one attorney in the Tribune that was quoted from the Citizen's Advocacy Group in Elmhurst that actually said it is a violation. Why would you choose the others and not choose the one—why wouldn't you tell that particular one? Could you tell us that opinion because I know you have got the article right there? President Hartstein could you ask Attorney Raysa that because he is speaking to this issue, so for clarity it would be good for him to mention that one opinion?" 12211 08/03/2009 President Hartstein stated that he personally does not believe it is necessary,however,if the Village Attorney wishes to comment,I invite him to comment. 14.1 Mr.Raysa stated that he did not discuss that. That is from the Chicago Tribune July 23,2009 article by Jeff Long and Jeff Danna. The quote is"A Citizen Advocacy lawyer said Raysa's opinion was incorrect and called the Buffalo Grove e-mails a violation of law undermining public participation in what should be open debate. All members do not have to contribute to the exchanges. Being copied is enough to violate the law said Miriam Juner, an attorney with Citizen's Advocacy Group in Elmhurst." EXECUTIVE SESSION Moved by Braiman,seconded by Trilling,to move to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing Pending Litigation,Section 2(c)(11)of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. Upon roll call,Trustees voted as follows: AYES: 6—Braiman,Glover,Berman,Trilling,Stone,Sussman NAYS: 0—None Motion declared carried. The Board moved to Executive Session from 9:41 P.M.until 10:22 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Sussman,seconded by Berman,to adjourn the meeting. Upon voice vote,the motion was unanimously declared carried,and the meeting was adjourned at 10:23 P.M. 7iet M.Sirabian,Village Clerk APPROVED BY ME THIS 17th DAY OF August ,2009 Village President