The publisher of La Grange Today has asked the Illinois Attorney General and the Cook County State's Attorney to conduct a formal investigation to determine if a closed session of the La Grange village board of trustees violated the state's Open Meetings Act (OMA).
Formal requests were submitted Monday, July 13, to the Attorney General's public access counselor in Springfield, and Tuesday, July 14, to the public corruption division of the State's Attorney's office in Chicago, according to publisher Thom Rae.
Rae said he believes the OMA exception cited for closing the meeting to the public, "probable or imminent litigation," was invalid because the discussion likely involved action being considered by village officials to prevent a pawn shop from opening in downtown La Grange.
"If the probable litigation discussed involved the pawn shop, then the exception should not apply because the discussion was premature," Rae said. "The board had not yet taken any action against the pawnbroker's interests on which a lawsuit could be based."
The board eventually did take action to prevent the pawn shop from opening, but not until this past Monday, June 13, six days after the closed session.
At Monday's regular open meeting, village trustees voted unanimously to approve several amendments to the zoning code regulating business uses in the downtown business district. One of the amendments prohibits any pawn shop from opening unless it already has been issued a building permit or certificate of occupancy.
Pawnbroker Andrew Grayson of Berwyn, who planned to open All-Star Jewelry & Loan at 71 S La Grange Rd, next to Village Hall, was issued a business license by the village May 21, but had not yet received the building permit for which he had applied a month ago. Monday's action by the board effectively revokes his business license. Following that meeting, Grayson declined to comment on whether he planned to take legal action against the village.
Rae said his belief that the closed session was illegal is based on a 1983 opinion written by then-Attorney General Neil Hartigan that defines the terms "probable" or "imminent" as they apply to litigation covered by the OMA exception cited by La Grange officials.
The opinion was issued in regard to a closed session into which the Springfield city council adjourned prior to voting in open session to annex land adjacent to the city. It determined that the exception cited for the closed session was invalid because:
The city council closed the meeting prior to deciding the annexation question on the basis that litigation over the annexation was probable or imminent. It, therefore, appears that the city council acted prematurely in closing the meeting on the basis of the litigation exception in that litigation over the annexation could not have been probable or imminent until the Springfield city council voted to adopt the annexation ordinance.
Rae said a copy of the opinion was sent to him by a representative of the Attorney General's public access counselor after he phoned on the day of the closed session to discuss his doubts about its validity. In his formal request for assistance submitted Monday, he asked for an investigation to determine if the opinion is applicable in the La Grange case.
A similar request for assistance filed by Rae last summer resulted in a determination that the La Grange board violated the OMA, by failing to cite the proper exceptions when it held a closed session May 21 to consider extending financial aid to the La Grange Theatre.
As a result, village officials agreed to attend a training session in which to better understand the OMA. That class was conducted in a public session held last January. But the board was able to keep confidential an audio recording of the closed session that is required by state law, as the Attorney General does not have the authority to compel its release.
That is why the Cook County State's Attorney's office also has been asked to investigate the closed session, Rae said. It can take the case before a circuit court judge who, if it is determined that the meeting violated the OMA, can order the village to release the audio recording. If warranted, the state's attorney also can file criminal charges. Violation of the Open Meetings Act is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1500 and imprisonment for up to 30 days.
Making the recording public would conform with spirit of the 1983 opinion, which also said of the Springfield case:
[I]f the possibility of a lawsuit over the annexation was a factor in the city council's legislative determination on the annexation, this matter should have been discussed in an open meeting since it goes to the merits of the question rather than to the litigation itself.
Ahhhhh La Grange.... Ahhh corruption and bias... Looks like politics as usual in Illinois are alive and well in La Grange... God forbid there is a collateral based loan outlet in the community!
Posted by: Robert | July 16, 2009 at 04:05 PM
Robert:
I love the renaming of "pawn shop" to "collateral based loan outlet".
Based on that, I've decided that the problem isn't the unsavory activity, it's simply the name.
Instead of "drug dealer" let's try "unlicensed pharmacuetical salesperson".
Instead of "prostitute" let's try "for-profit sexual satisfaction provider".
Go ahead, allow them all in La Grange. They're not bad for the community, they're just victims of bad marketing.
After all, who needs a thriving downtown, rising property values, good schools and a vibrant community.
As Shakespeare wrote: "What's in a name?"
Posted by: BaristaThomRaeIsAKook | July 17, 2009 at 09:21 AM