Special City Council Meeting

Thanks, Katie. It is not true of all departments, though.

Chief Harrison is not involved in contract negotiations.

Mac–There would have to be a positvely fantastic band playing before I would consider paying a cover charge anywhere. 😉

I wouldn't want to be in Bruce Harrison's shoes. Mike Larson first brought it up and was met with a wall of silence. It was a point in the Lynn Fazekas campaign and she was chastised for wanting to bring in "hired guns." Its one of the recommendations in the EPI report which is in danger of being negotiated mute.

Administrators should not be involved in contract negotiations. Its bad for morale. Its bad for "best interest of the community."

<code><center><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ZAjm0OU0Ao&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ZAjm0OU0Ao&hl=en&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></center></code>

HT-Mark Charvat. Thanks for the work you put in recording, segmenting and publishing these videos to the web.

Mr. Pevonka, Chief Harrison is the Fire Chief. I don't know who he represents, if anyone. I said he hopes they (the city and the ff) can come to an agreement. They (the ff) met with the city…at this point everything is still up in the air. What I do know is Chief Harrison cares about his firemen and his community. He wants this resolved. It's stressful not only for him, but for the ff as well. He's hoping for no layoffs because that puts him (US) down more ff, and he's (WE'RE) already short staffed. If the city and council decides to layoff, then he has to pick up the pieces and manage with what's left. Eventually, he (WE) will have to hire more firemen, so it makes no sense to layoff who we have as they've been trained.

Kay, do you know of a meeting attended by 3 or more city council members where city business was discussed and the public had to pay a cover charge?

P.S. Did I not write a **long time ago** that non-home rule gives employees more rights and protections!!??

AG Madigan's Open Meetings for Dummies (of course, not its real title) is very good. The city has the OPTION of holding a closed session. This is not an employee disciplinary action.

What may be illegal is if/when three or more aldermen are at meetings when city business gets discussed and the public did not get invited, or worse, if there was a cover charge.

Katie. I have read the first paragraph of you latest post several times and have a question. ( maybe I am missing something). When the 2 sides sit at the table which side of the table does the Fire Chief sit on? Does he sit at the FF side table of the City side table? When they huddle about negotiating postures does he huddle with the Union or City Management?

Maybe I am reading your last post wrong but it appears that the Chief is representing the union in their proposals to the City. In reality isn't he really part of the city maangement team?

Pevo

Ivan. I believe before that next election takes place the ward bourdary's will be redrawn. This will be worth some real attention and let's see if they are redrawn for the best interests of all of DeKalb or just a select few. This may be a good time to review the recommendation of over 2 years ago to rethink the 7 ward system.

P.S. I hope all noticed that the Tatoo Issue appeared at the last Committee of the Whole while the EPI report remains buried on a shelf at City Hall.

Has this question been asked? Instead of laying off 3 firefighters why not lay off 2 and fire the one that was involved in the DUI crash earlier this year.
Several people have been asking this and many more questions about this case.

Thanks Mac. I also contacted Chief Harrison (again), and he is still hoping they can come to some agreement by July 1st, but he said it's not looking good. They met with the city Thursday and made an offer that was worth more money than the first. If I remember this correctly, the fire dept is offering to extend the raise again.

Trust is a huge issue with me, and I don't trust this city at the moment, including the school district/board. It turns out most of the time (in my opinion and experience) that there's an agenda behind their rhetoric and actions, and it's not always in the best interest of the citizens/community. However, I must say I'm thankful for and trust Mac, Grace, Ivan, Lynn and a few others (oh I must include Dana and Dan Doty from Archer Alignment in this because they're the only people I trust with my car!).

I also was under the impression that AFSCME agreed to the pay freeze, but I found out they hadn't when I called Steve Kapitan Friday. I'm wondering the same as Lynn as to why everything has been hush hush.

I hope many community members show their beautiful faces Monday night.

and another think… as a member of the Finance Advisory Committee I have access to the same information available to all you folks, and none more. I believe the committee (at least I have) has gone along with "Plan A" because early on it was apparent that a year needed to be bought. Taxpayers deserve proper due diligence to analyze information gathered through committee meetings and from the EPI report, hold the public discourse elected officials require to make representative decisions, and the staff necessary time to implement changes.

Revenue and expenditure projections under "Plan A" allowed for no staff reductions and no tax increases. Those projections were approved when the council approved the budget. The margin for error was slim (around $200,000 projected surplus).

It appears from Chronicle reports (same info as you) that "Plan B" is being negotiated or at least from the unions' perspective "Plan A" has been rejected. Reports included mention of a proposed freeze on staff reductions through the contracts term in return for a one year agreement on the wage freeze. I suspect, if those reports are accurate, that this "Plan B" is the topic of any closed session.

If council agrees to a multiple year freeze on staff reductions in exchange for a one year freeze on wages they will then be forced to increase taxes and… ignore the consultants report and severely limit committee recommendations.

So, the answer is "no."

I surely hope that ALL the voters remember this fiasco when the next election comes up. That city election will see 4 aldermanic positions up for election. Wards 1, 3, 5, and 7. That would be Aldermen Simpson, Woggen, Naylor, and Keller. A finely organized slate would have a great chance and once elected could hopefully right this sinking ship.

It truly is time for this community to demand accountability and openness from its mayor and council. I thought this was a promise that some gave during the election. How soon we forget.

Katie, interesting question on whether or not a closed session Monday night would be illegal. To quote a former President, "That depends on what the meaning of the word is, is."

1. The exceptions authorize but do not require the closing of a meeting falling within their scope. 5 ILCS 120/2(b), 2a.

So, really, just in case new aldermen and clerks don't know… there is no law that says closed session is mandatory. That's why it must be voted on. The council elects to go into closed session.

2. The exception does, however, authorize a public body to hold closed unilateral meetings to discuss its negotiating response when collective bargaining negotiations are ongoing.

Again note the word is authorize which is not require. Since AFSCME and IAFF already have contracts there is reason to question the legality.

The whole point of the Open Meetings Act is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Ivan, this is the vote authorizing the CM to lay off AFSCME workers. The resolution authorizing the layoff of firefighters was given last Monday.

In the case of AFSCME, at least (per their contract) the union must be notified a minimum of 45 days in advance of layoffs. This is not something that just popped up two weeks ago and it's disturbing that no information at all has been shared with the people.

The city is within its rights to lay off people to balance the budget. The unions are within their rights to enforce their contracts. The one group here with no apparent rights are the citizens of DeKalb. Who's thinking about what might be best for the community? Is that even on the radar?

Are they only discussing the AFSCME union? They are not talking about the firefighters union? Are they discussing the firefighters at a later date or did the firefighters negotiate a deal?

How many will be let go from AFSCME? Hopefully the new City Clerk reads this and gives some straight up advise to the mayor and council before Monday night. We should all just show up and demand to be seated for this meeting and discussion.

We all need to review the shenanigans that went on at the last council meeting

VIDEOS VIDEOS VIDEOS: Yes they are here!

Videos Highlights (LOWLIGHTS) of the 6/22 Council meeting are here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DeKalbILLINOI…

PS…Be sure to turn up your computer volume when viewing. The audio is recorded at a low volume

This document could easily be picked apart; however, I'll focus on one area:

WHEREAS, subject to said Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare;

OUR council is going against this very principle, "for the PROTECTION of the PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, and WELFARE," by threatening to and going forward with laying off OUR firefighters and OUR Public Works employees. (They'd do the same with our Police Department had their contract already been in place.)

Am I understanding Lisa Madigan's Handbook to the Open Meetings Act correctly, that OUR city council is illegally holding a closed session with this matter?