Behind closed doors

Hear hear, Mr. Krpan. What is happening in DeKalb is alarming!

Happy Independence Day Americans!

May we all be able to once again reach down deep and find that spirit that our forefathers had when they fought for this country's independence. We once again find ourselves in a very simliar time with our government showing great disregard for the Constitution of this great country.

A government for the people, by the people.

I would feel much better if she had listed the properties that are currently for sale. The city shouldn't be sitting on their rears in marketing the properties that are for sale. example being the skating rink lot.

I sincerely hope the city is waiting for all the improvements to be made downtown before doing the marketing on these properties.

I also heard from some legitimate sources that the original architect that designed all of the downtown improvements has walked away from this project. In fact, they walked away from the project and left a good chunk of money on the table that they could have easily made by doing the inspection. Why? Why would a company that drew the project not wish to inspect their own concept? Maybe that's the answer.

I'm also told that the initial drawings were just that, conceptual and not for build. If this is true, what are the overages to be to the work being completed? Did Elliott and Wood win an actual bid bidding off of a conceptual drawing? How does a company do that? What are the engineers really going off of? Is it strictly off the cuff on this work? I know there were significant upcharges and extra on the parking lot work. Why are they not public?

It should be a warning to us when the architect washes their hand of a project.

Completely off topic, but I am wondering what property ReNew would be renting. I wasn't aware ReNew was in the business of leasing, renting or possibly owning property. I emailed Jennifer Groce directly on the ReNew site in the beginning of the week and have yet to hear a reply. Perhaps this is due to the holiday week? I checked the ReNew site on Wednesday, and the notice for properties was no longer there. I checked back again today and it's back:

Downtown DeKalb Property Availability
for more information, please contact Re:New DeKalb at:

Jennifer Groce, Exec.Director
Re:New DeKalb
111 South Second Street, #201
DeKalb, IL, 60115
Phone: 815-748-7788
Fax: 815-748-7799

RENTAL SPACE:

There are no current listings, please check back later.

I am assuming the city thinks I am annoying. 😉 I know they find the former frat guy from Glen Ellyn annoying. Mayor Van Buer finally told him to stop coming because he did not live here but I think that might have been because he was not feeling well by then.

Kay, if the city thinks you're annoying, keep it up. The city is bound and determined to get what they want regardless who ends up hurt in the longrun. Hope you feel better soon.

Sorry about omitting the organ, Kay, probably was subconscious defense against thought of the procedure, which makes me a little queasy.

No usually means no, unless it means yes or maybe. We should be so lucky as to have more councilmen who are willing to clarify its intended meaning during votes.

Okay I'll Try Again…The Link is here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZAjm0OU0Ao&fe…

Craig – here you go Baker saying "No means No"

P.S. I think I sacrificed pancreatitis and an organ to test the EMS response time. 😉

The EMTs were very nice and made sure my naughty black and white cat did not make a run for it out the front door. I remember one of them had some big tattoos on his forearm–now there is a benefit of tattoos. I was in so much pain I was sweating and I do not remember their names or what they looked like but I am very grateful for the guy with the tattoos and his partner for getting me to the hospital in time (and not letting the black and white cat escape in the process).

Thank you for volunteering for pancreatitis duty in order to test our emergency system. I salute you. ;^) (Hope you are feeling better.)

EMTs gave me a 'ride' to the Kishwaukee Hilton Tuesday morning. I am now gall bladder-less but that will not stop me from having the gall to become a total annoyance to the city if they lay off firefighters and/or if they close down a fire station. I think the ambulance that gave me a ride came from the N. 7th St. station? By the time I got off 911, put extra cat food in the bowls, and grabbed the remote control for the garage door so someone could get in the house to feed the cats again if I was going to end up somewhere for a while, the ambulance was there. I had pancreatitis so badly that I almost got sent somewhere else to a specialist, which probably means I almost got choppered out of Kish.

Response time to any emergency is critical.

If the City thought I was annoying before about making sure all our emergency services (including police) get proper funding, they have not seen anything yet. No more 'decorating' downtown until the critical needs get met first.

On the September 8, 2008, City Council meeting two aldermen admitted to being party to inappropriate use of closed sessions. Neither has done anything to remedy the situation. This is probably because they fear they would implicate themselves along the way.

It is clear that a backroom decision was made to postpone action on the layoff resolution, just as a backroom decision was made not to take action on the EPI recommendations.

I would be perfectly willing to help document evidence of misuse of closed sessions for a complaint to be sent to the AG; however, this would not be nearly as effective as someone on the inside initiating action or at least being ready and willing to corroborate.

There is a window of opportunity NOW in that the newest members of Council–or, alternatively, our new City Clerk–could take action without the same worries veteran Council members have about previous toleration of closed-session abuse.

Pevo, I guess the official explanation is offered on the Povlsen addresses the media video (after the June 29 meeting). According to Povlsen, if the FF submit a side letter similar to side letter submitted by AFSCME then he thinks the council will postpone laying off the 3 FFs until the council can discuss it at the July 13 meeting (when they make their decision on whether or not to layoff three AFSCME employees.)

Not to add more confusion but I don't know of any council meetings between now and July 13. So I suspect that Mark Biernacki was instructed to let the council know if he got a side letter from the FF before June 30.

If he did then on July 13 the council, according to Povlsen, could change the budget and avoid layoffs.

I don't know of anything in the state statutes that allows for this type of government but we do have Home Rule. I found this old video that should shed a light on how this is all legal.

<center><object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejvyDn1TPr8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejvyDn1TPr8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object></center>

After many discussions with various city people, the reason they don't want to layoff three FF is because they will still be bound to paying the raise. I'm now understanding this has nothing to do with the next fiscal year, otherwise they'd accept the FF offer. Imo, this has been a shell game all along, and they're experts at it. The bottom line is they are doing anything they can to break the contract and avoid paying the raise; therefore, it's not over until the city gets their way. That's how I see it.

Pevo,

Sounds very much like the city council took a vote within the closed meeting and waived the public notice for debate. That would also mean that a first and second reading was also performed during the 45 minute closed meeting. This is the way I'm seeing it.

There definitely was no room for discussion from the public and Mike Taylor in the video clip refers openly to an email that was sent to council and the mayor which to me, they actually acted upon that matter with a vote and probably due to the letter that Mr. Taylor sent. Why are we even announcing council meetings when it really seems to me that all of the voting is going on behind closed doors, telephone, and via email. This would be a major no no.

Just for discussion as there is no other media outlet to go too. Not taking sides I have a question on the procedures or rules being followed by the CC on the FF layoff issue. Someone please clarify.

At the June 22 meeting there was a published agenda that includd a resolution telling the city manager to begin laying off 3 FF to mmeet the FY 2010 budget. This item was posted in the meeting agenda, citizens were made aware of the resoultion, there was time for public comment and then there was council debate and finally the council voted on the resolution. The council then voted to direct the city manager to reduce the number of firefighters by 3 to meet the budget. Pretty clear to me.

A special meeting was then called on June 29 and according to the agenda a closed door meeting was being considerd to discuss the AFSCME contract. Following that meeting it was announced that the AFSCME issue was being postponed until July 13 because the sides were still working towards a resolution. Okay I see that because this issue still had not been publically debated and voted on by the council.

What I don't get is that is was also announced that the FF issue was being brought back to the table for further negotiations. Regardless of what side of this issue you are on I ask how can this be done this way. How can the council go into closed session and decide to set aside an issue that has already been voted on and passed by the council. To set this aside shouldn't it require a mayoral veto or three members asking that it be put back on the agenda for public debate and a new open vote.

Bottom line but what power is the council using to avoid action on the resolution that was passed at the June 22, meeting calling for the layoffs of 3 FF and what rules are they following to set this resolution aside without bringing it back to the public and council for an open debate and vote.

Someone please help explain this.

Pevo

Mac,

Alderman Baker should not speak on items that he doesn’t know about, only Katie and I know if she did or didn’t “work” on My campaign. But I can tell you that she did not work for Dave Baker’s campaign!

Now I am sorry that I missed the meeting, I was away for work. I heard that Alderman Baker made a coment if “No” means “No”. I was wondering if this was true and if so can someone point me to a video clip of this?

Mac, I owe you an apology on here. Thank you chatting with me to clear up my state of confusion. I do believe I had a moment of insanity and craziness. That's what I get for telling Mr. Biernacki he was crazy and insane during our phone conversation Monday before the council meeting. lol Think I've been seeing red regarding the city for far too long. Did they say the psych unit was open? LOL

Guess I'll take the time to explain this, but as I'm doing so, I'm wondering why I am taking the time. Initially, I campaigned hard for Max until he had to pull out, and then turned my focus on Craig up until the very end. Period. I did not campaign for Lash or Smith, and I never campaigned for Baker. Every Baker card, letter, flyer went in the trash, which is something I regret because I'd like to hold him accountable for his campaign promises. He is well aware of how I felt about him because I told him. The election is over. He is my alderman. He represents me. I needed his help for personal reasons. I have spoken with him several times regarding issues I'm concerned about with the city. Surprisingly, he has a funny sense of humor, something I didn't expect. Hope that's clear enough for you, Mac. If there's anything else you would like to know, I would sincerely appreciate that you speak to me personally. Thank you.

Regards,
Katie

I don't know who Katie worked for but I think "that woman" was someone else. And this is about as confusing of a string there is. But then again, I am easily confused. So Lynn, when Katie explains the details to you would you explain them to me, using your best Hooked on Phonics methodology. And type slowly. 🙄

Hi Lynn, no, I'll explain in detail later, but I'm the horse. : )

Which comment, Katie? The one about Plan A being a failure you mean?

Mac, you have no idea what happened at the 11th hour, so you shouldn't make comments like that until you ask the horse.

Mike Taylor's, Katie Stoddard and 2 other videos from Monday Night's Special Dekalb City Council Meeting are here:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DeKalbILLINOI…

Sigh…Back to the contracts…

Hey Lynn. How does one become eligible for retirement? It takes 2 things correct? Age and length of service. Tick Tick Tick!!!

Pevo

The failure of "Plan A" shows the limits of "divide and conquer" types of negotiations and the pitfalls of opening up mid-term contract negotiations. Sadly, it also leaves doubt about whether any of the parties are actually considering the overall good of the community.

I agree that going beyond one year of a no-layoffs guarantee could have horrifying consequences and that the city should hold firm in this area.

One thing they MUST fix ASAP are the Step increases from A to B, which are outrageous even if we weren't in dire straits. The old FOP contract is the most modest, at under 10%, but management is something like 15.7% and IAFF is 18.8%. If we were to have a surge in retirements anytime soon, the hiring freeze had better still be in place or this is something else that could break us. In fact I'd pay something to peek at a list of birthdays about now.

Do the math: The firefighters proposal to set aside their raises is for long term financial goals. Presenting savings for one year is not accurate or intellectually honest. What effect does either the City's proposal or the unions' proposal have on pension costs?

TruthSlider: Slide the timeline button on the above video to 1:40. "If we have side letters in hand we can change the budget." Really.

Multi-year no layoff guarantees: It's been openly discussed in the media and at council meetings. So its really not a behind closed door secret. I've gone along with a one year no-pay-increase-no-layoffs deal to buy a year for the City to get its financial ship righted. There is no valid reason to guarantee no layoffs. It is beyond being financially irresponsible. The city opened the door to such negotiations with Plan A. Plan A called for voluntary concessions on a 1 year wage freeze. The union-represented rank and file have every right to demand that their contract instead be honored to its full extent. A multiyear no layoff deal is RIDICULOUS.

Plan A is a signal failure.

Correction noted. Thanks Mark. Did you capture the meeting? I am particularly interested in Mike Taylor's address to the council.

Not so personal note to those standing in the lobby with Ald. Baker after the meeting: "That lady" did NOT work for the Craig Roman campaign.

Point of clarification: Didn't the council vote 6-1 at the last meeting (6/22) to lay off the Firefighters? (Ald Baker voted NO)

Shame on Mr Povlsen and the Aldermen for one again engaging in more "CLOSED DOOR" business that should have been kept in the open

Thank you for the video Mac.

I thank the mayor and council for politely listening to me, also.