Will County Board Democratic Caucus Committee met Nov. 16.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Freeman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Majority Leader Meta Mueller called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Meta Mueller | Majority Leader | Present | |
| Sherry Newquist | Member | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Member | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Majority Whip | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Absent | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Absent | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | Member | Absent | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Mimi Cowan | Speaker | Present | |
| Mica Freeman | Member | Present |
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Democratic Caucus - Special Meeting - Sep 14, 2021 6:00 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [9 TO 0]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Mica Freeman, Member AYES: Mueller, Newquist, Koch, Harris, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Marcum, Cowan, Freeman ABSENT: Traynere, Winfrey, Ventura, Coleman AWAY: Tyson |
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion of County Board Agenda
Land Use
Mr. Marcum stated we have two solar farm requests which have 16 conditions, nothing controversial. The other thing that we had was a zoning map amendment, which was unanimous.
Finance
Mr. Harris stated we have a few things on the agenda coming up. We have a Public Hearing on the FY2022 Budget. I feel this is a very good budget; it is pretty much bipartisan. We have funding for the 211 System, funding for the State’s Attorney’s CAC, a Ride Share Program; as well as the rate is going down for the sixth year in a row. We had a lot of input and worked with everyone in getting this passed. Hopefully, we can be there on Thursday and get this vote done. It does address all the County’s needs.; it includes the $5.7 million that we got from our revenue replacement; we gave a portion of that to the organization that I just mentioned. Land Use has been given some additional staff, and the State’s Attorney will get additional staff. We will have to vote on each levy with separate resolutions. If the budget doesn’t pass then it may affect the different resolutions; for the FICA Levy, the IMRF Levy, (inaudible) the Health Department, and various levies. This is an important budget for the upcoming year. Outside of that we will have a few appropriated Grant Funds in the Will County Health Center, as well as the CAC, the (inaudible).
Ms. Mueller asked if anyone is not going to be at the meeting on Thursday; I need to know that now. I was just making sure I was very clear again, that everyone needs to be there on Thursday.
Mr. Brooks asked Mr. Harris if any of the votes require a super majority.
Speaker Cowan stated it is not a super majority; it is the majority of the Board. That’s where we ran into problems at Forest Preserve; that it was a majority of the Board that was required; not a majority of those present. But they require a majority of the Board; so, we need 14 votes. It doesn’t matter if there are only 14 people at the meeting. We need 14 votes to pass.
Ms. Newquist asked if we are still having the meetings via WebEx.
Ms. Freeman asked if you have contacted the other members that are not here to make sure that they are present.
Ms. Mueller said not since you just asked me that, or in the last 24 hours; but I did at two Democratic Caucuses ago tell everyone who was here; you must be at the November meeting. If you are not, you must tell me so I will follow up with them. I wanted to make sure I was clear about that; this is not the first time I am saying it.
Mr. Harris said in my time on the Board I don’t think we ever had a full support of the budget. We have the majority so we should go and take care of business and we will be okay.
Public Works
Mr. Van Duyne said for the sake of time everything passed through committee unanimously, conducting business as usual. I would like to answer any questions you may have; otherwise, we can move on.
Diversity & Inclusion
Mr. Palmer said there was just an update from the consultant; lots of questions from certain people but we will have another update on their work in December; they are continuing to move forward. Some of you may have been reached out to; the consultant is reaching out to individual County Board Members. I believe they were starting with some of the Leadership or people that represented more diverse districts to begin with. They are going to talk to all of you and get input from you on what they are doing. If you haven’t gotten call, they will be contacting you.
Mr. Brooks asked what their name is.
Mr. Palmer replied Reberto Carmona and his staff.
Public Health
Ms. Mueller said the only resolution that we have is about extending the Sunny Hill Nursing Home admission policy for Non-Will County residents.
Legislative & Judicial
Ms. Mueller stated neither the Chair nor Vice Chair are here. I know the Department Heads received an email asking about Legislative Priorities.
Mr. Palmer said there are two items on the agenda. One is a holdover from last month, Dr. Burke recommended that the County take a position. This deals with a limit of the number of beds; that is a federal issue. Then Ms. Novak brought forth allowing us to opt out of preferential assessment for Low Income Housing if we wanted to, we could always opt back in at some point. Her recommendation was this is something we wanted to do. Both issues seemed to be non-controversial. We are going to work with the Executive’s Office on the creation of the 2022 Federal and State Agendas. In Springfield it will probably be a very short session with not a lot of heavy lifting on bills. But if there is something that Board Members, Elected Officials, or Department Heads want to be focused on, supporting on, or opposing, we want to know that so we can put it in the agenda books. That is something we are going to start now and work through the holidays and hope for early January.
Ms. Mueller said that’s kind of what the email to all of us was.
Executive
Speaker Cowan stated one of the first things that we are going to be doing as you know; we all run in staggered elections. Each seat gets 4-4-2, 4-2-4 or 2-2-4 as the length of your terms. Basically, we draw straws and in this case pieces of paper; to set which districts run on which schedule. There is going to be a little ceremony that will happens; there will be one person from each caucus participating in that. Also, the Clerk’s Office, the County Board Office, and the Executive’s Office has laid out what that plan is and how it works; I think everyone’s come to an agreement on that.
Mrs. Adams said Mr. Pelkie is going to provide that to us tomorrow and we are going to email that out to all the County Board Members so they can follow along.
Speaker Cowan said that will be one thing that is happening. I think there is going to be some discussion about the next three things on the agenda; setting salaries for the Clerk, the Sheriff, and the Treasurer; just as a reminder we set salaries for only the people who are up for election next. That is why the Executive, the Coroner, the Auditor, and the Circuit Clerk are not on here because they will be set in two years. This is obviously done every two years; the Executive Committee made a motion to keep the salaries the same; we can decide what is going to happen; I know there are a variety of opinions on this so at this point I open the floor for discussion on this.
Ms. Freeman said in a perfect world they would all increase to some extent. When I look at the charts the thing that pops out at me; I will call a deficit for the Sheriff’s Department. I started comparing and saw that he has 650 employees; of those 650 employees 400 are sworn personal. The rest are support staff; more than 80 of those employees earn more than he does. Based on the charts that we received the position received its last raise in 2007. Comparing the counties around us with similar populations, square mileage, and households our Sheriff earns between $30,000 and $60,000 less than the other counties. The gap exists and I don’t think it should be left unchecked.
Mr. Brooks asked if this is just the Sheriff that you are referring to.
Ms. Freeman said like I said in the beginning; I said I would love to see everybody get a raise if we can have that discussion. But the Sheriff was the one that really jumped out as having the largest deficit. Voting for a salary freeze for myself was one thing; but to vote it for the rest of them; that is another story.
Speaker Cowan asked what your proposal is.
Ms. Freemen stated I would say 3% annually for the next 2 years.
Ms. Newquist stated I would agree; and I think that makes sense for the other offices as well. We need to make sure that we are paying people appropriately for the job that they do.
Ms. Mueller stated I was surprised that we don’t have any cost-of-living increases or any small increases as in a lot of places. I hear what you are saying, that was something I was surprised by when I started working in Will County. I have been listening to feedback from everyone and what it is like in other places too.
Ms. Freeman said I did the comparisons for those too. The County Clerk is anywhere from $384.00 to $31,000 behind the surrounding counties. The Treasure is anywhere from $84.00 to $31,000. DuPage is just so massive.
At this juncture Ms. Freeman reviewed the surrounding counties and what their pay was for the County Clerk, Treasurer, and the Sheriff in those counties.
Speaker Cowan said a 3% raise would put him at $114,250.00 and then the next year would be at $117,678.00.
Ms. Freeman said it is a step in the right direction to stop if from getting way out of control.
Mr. Harris said I would support giving it to the Sheriff.
Speaker Cowan said we are going to have to vote on these each separately; let’s talk about them individually.
Mr. Brophy stated McHenry put all their raises in one resolution. Speaker said it is too late now; they are separate already.
Ms. Mueller went around the table asking how each Board Member felt. Mr. Marcum, Ms. Newquist, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Harris, Ms. Mueller were all in favor of raises. Not all members were polled.
Mr. Van Duyne stated for those of you that were at the Executive Committee Meeting; I did make the motion not to give anybody an increase for the for the Countrywides; I did double down after not giving our own County Board raises. It’s unfortunate; if we were in a different time say not going through the pandemic. I think everybody in my district and throughout the county is looking at us handing out raises when people are depending on federal funding, unemployment, and whatever the case maybe. I just think it is a bad look on Elected Officials to be handing out money like that. I am sorry and I wish everybody could get a raise. I just don’t think the time is now; I think the pandemic has kind of screwed a lot of things up and this is one of them. I can’t support it I am sorry.
Speaker Cowan stated I am on the fence; I get it. But the County Executive gave us an impassioned speech at our last Caucus Meeting about how voting for raises is like a death now. Not that I think we should do things necessary for political reasons, but people felt one way about that. I see both sides of the argument; you got to put some of the fixes in it at some point. When we discussed County Board raises this time last year one of the reasons, I didn’t vote for it because we were in the middle of a f**king pandemic where people couldn’t even pay their mortgages. This is tough, regardless of if Mr. Van Duyne votes no; then there must be Republican votes for it.
Ms. Newquist stated I don’t think there will be.
Ms. Mueller asked Ms. Freeman if she talked to any Republicans. Ms. Freeman replied I did not talk to any Republicans.
Speaker Cowan said I was thinking about it while I was sitting here; I know you said for two years; but they have four-year terms. I think if you are going to do it, I would think you would do it for all four years.
Mrs. Tatroe stated you can pass and not do a raise for this year because of the pandemic and go for a year or two years out; and set them so that raises are coming sometime in their term. You could keep it level for 2022, 2023 if you want but then in 2024 and 2025 give them raises.
Ms. Newquist said I started out in favor of giving us raises; then I backed out because I agree the optics were terrible. In my mind giving the Countywides raises are different. Because, what really speaks to me the most that Mike Kelly makes less than some of his employees. That is a demoralizing situation for everyone.
Ms. Mueller said I am going to go out on a limb; and guess that our entire staff makes more than our highest paid elected. And so does the County Executive; they have several staff members that make more than her. Not that that’s okay or whatever but it’s like apples to apples.
Speaker Cowan said I would push back on that being demoralizing. These are people who ran for that position knowing that people in the department make more than them.
Ms. Newquist said I am thinking more on the lines of someone who is thinking about running for the position. Then to think oh my God I must take a giant pay cut. You are right Speaker Cowan you go into it knowing that.
Speaker Cowan said just for math’s sake if we do 3% for every year it would be 2022 would be $114,250, 2023 would be $117,678, 2024 would be $121,208, and 2025 would be $124,844.
Ms. Newquist stated I think if we are not going to be unanimous that we should forego the raises; because I don’t think we are going to get any Republicans to go along with it.
Mr. Palmer stated I just want to point this out; in the past and correct me if I am wrong. When the County did Countywides increases because 7 or 8 of the Countywides all make the same amount. If you would give raises for the three Countywides now their going to have increased salaries for at least two years where the other Countywides aren’t. if you are fine with that it is fine; I just wanted to point that out. So, what they have done in the past is to set it for the out year. Like year three and four, for current people who are running, and year one and two for the next people, so they all move together. You don’t have to do that because a lot of counties don’t pay their Countywide’s the same amount. We pay them all the same amount except the State’s Attorney, the Regional Superintended and the Sheriff.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the State’s Attorney is set by the State, so they are different.
Mr. Palmer said so the 7 of the 10 I think are all the same. The last time the salaries were increased they staged them. For the Clerk and the Treasurer, they wouldn’t get their increases until their 3rd or 4th year; and for the County Executive, the Auditor, and the Circuit Clerk would get in year 1 and 2. You don’t have to do that; but that is how it’s done if you value parity. I don’t know that you need to do that.
Speaker Cowan said the parity thing is tough; the flip argument of this is the Sheriff makes more than all the other Countywides.
Ms. Freeman said and the Sheriff also has 650 people and a more unincorporated area. I am looking at the surrounding counties and the difference is huge.
Mr. Brophy said (inaudible) my argument would be this class of employee is unlike the others because of the election; but otherwise (inaudible) because of the pandemic. Some of them make over $100,000.
Ms. Freeman asked if you could repeat that please.
Mr. Brophy said there are several thousand employees in our county that are going to get a raise. You all have got to vote for their raise in a pandemic.
Ms. Freeman said I do realize that they are Elected Officials. They are counting on us to look out (inaudible) we vote for our own raises; that is what I said is completely different. Me voting against my own raise verses me voting against others.
Speaker Cowan stated I disagree. Because you are not actually voting for your own raise. You are voting for the position; you still must run for that position, and you very well may lose. I don’t see a lot of difference in that.
Mr. Van Duyne said let me ask; why do you guys believe that the Republicans won’t support this.
Ms. Newquist stated I think it is wrong, but they haven’t supported anything. But they might support the Sheriff eventually. I don’t know.
Mr. Brophy stated if you guys indicate your support tonight, I will talk to each one of the Republicans; I don’t know what that will do. All I would like to do is to share this information with them. The state statute gives you the duties of reviewing every two years; and they should at least review this before they make their decision; that is part of their duty. I ask you to consider this information and I ask them to do the same.
Mr. Brooks asked when their caucus is.
Mr. Brophy said tomorrow night. On my 59th birthday I shall attempt it.
Mr. Palmer said Mr. Brophy there are better ways to spend your birthday than a Republican Caucus. That is more of a punishment, and I will be there.
Ms. Mueller said you might go in there and get something done.
Mr. Brophy said I also must get elected like you guys did; this is self-serving only to the point that I succeed in the next election.
Ms. Freeman said I think that everybody deserves the opportunity to say yes or no.
Ms. Tyson asked how many votes you need to pass the raises.
Mrs. Tatroe said it is a majority of the Board.
Mrs. Adams said I thought it was just a majority of who is present. Mrs. Tatroe said I need to research that.
At this juncture a discussion was had about what the vote would have to be between the majority, or a super majority, or a majority of who is present at the meeting. Also, if it would be voted down, or if they would have to do a floor amendment due to being too late for the County Board Meeting.
Ms. Mueller said what do we think gang; it sounds like if the Republicans were going to vote for this then we would have the votes for it. But we don’t know if we have the votes with them.
Mr. Van Duyne stated we have four members missing tonight, right?
Dan Jungles stated there are Republicans that are going to support a raise for the Sheriff.
Ms. Mueller said I feel like we need to get some closure on this. Ms. Freemen stated she would make the motion.
Ms. Tyson said I will second it.
Mr. Van Duyne asked Ms. Freeman what her motion would be.
At this juncture the members reviewed the options of years and amounts of the raises that they want to make a motion for. Members gave Ms. Freeman options of how she can make the motion.
Ms. Mueller said so next let’s talk about the County Clerk.
Mr. Brophy said the county portion is $93,112 the State stipend is $6,500. You are only talking about the $93,112.
Ms. Freeman said I am assuming that their year of raise is the same the last time. Ms. Mueller asked when the last County Clerk raise was, do we know. Mr. Palmer said the County Board was 2009; 2007 is when everybody’s pay went up. It all impacted the Countywides in 2007 they all moved together to what they are at now.
Mr. Harris asked if this would be an amendment, right?
Ms. Mueller said all of these would have to be an amendment.
Speaker Cowan said with the State’s stipend the Clerk would be up to $102,290 that is with a 3% raise.
Ms. Tyson said once we pass this when would it go into effect.
Ms. Mueller said we get to say so we either start it the first year or the third year is what we have been talking about.
Mr. Palmer said you can’t change an Elected Officials salary during their term so, they must be re-elected. When you set it after an election is your call. So, year one, year two, year three, and year four.
Ms. Newquist said I like the year three and year four. Also, it does address the issue of giving people raises in the tail end of a pandemic.
Ms. Tyson said Mr. Palmer said it would go into effect after the election. Ms. Mueller explained we are talking about 2022 election right now. Mr. Brophy said it will go into effect December 1, 2024.
Speaker Cowan said if we give a 3% raise that started in 2024 that would be $102,290 and if 3% the next year 2025 it would be $105,153. It would be in the 3rd and 4th year each 3%.
Mr. Books said if we don’t start doing something about it. Mr. Brophy did a very good job in showing us how far other counties are. I think if not now than when? I don’t think that 3% is a whole lot however I do like the part when we start in 2024. Considering I know how Mr. Van Duyne feels we do respect that.
Mr. Van Duyne said when you brought that the two-year gap is something to consider. I just can’t commit to it right now. I would really hope that the Countywide Officials would get support from the other side. At least a couple that would help everybody’s situation.
Ms. Mueller said if we want to amend this on the floor; who is willing to do that? Ms. Newquist said I would be willing to do that.
Mr. Brooks said I will second that on the floor.
Ms. Mueller said so the same thing about the Treasures Office; are we feeling the same way? I don’t want to go through this and make everybody talk about it again if I don’t have to. Who will make the motion and who will second it? Okay it will be Mr. Brooks and Ms. Tyson.
Speaker Cowan said Mr. Fricilone, Ms. Mueller, Mr. Palmer, the Executive, the Auditor, and Mr. Schaben, and I met briefly today. We have had the ARPA Consultant interviews; at the end of those interviews normally when we would rank the top three and come to the County Board to ask for the Executive’s permission to negotiate. We put another step into the process because the proposals were so different, we wanted to see what their costs might be too. Of course, we know there is always going to be extra costs with these things. We were able to get that information this afternoon and the group ranked the top three companies. That will be on your agenda with the ranking to have the Executive negotiating as she normally would with a consultant like this. We are moving forward; hopefully with the goal that we would be able to negotiate the contract and we would be able to execute the contract at our December meeting. It will list the three companies in order, and it will give the authority to negotiate with them. Just so you know the list was unanimous. The next is the professional contract with our Federal Lobbyist first; this is a little different. Smith Dawson has been our Federal Lobbyists for ages. Originally, they were contracted at $10,000 per month. In 2008 due to the recession, they took a 20% cut to their services to $8,000 per month. With the agreement that once things have come back up, they would be brought back up to the $10,000. Low and behold it is 2021 and that never happened so certainly there is that end of it. Then there is the end of it with these federal bills. The Infrastructure Bill, ARPA, and all these kind on monies and possibilities that are coming from the Federal Government; they have been doing a lot more work with us this year. I know that’s not a lot of things as Board Members that you see. But I do tell you how much of a help that they have been; and how much we expect from them going forward. It is critically important that we have their services for this coming year. The proposal is to restore their contract back to the $10,000 per month. In Executive Committee it wasn’t unanimous, but it was darn near unanimous. With the Republicans Ms. Ogalla voted no, and her reasoning was we just said we are not voting for any raises so why are we giving them a raise. I really think the answer to that is the ROI on this one. We stand to get in millions and millions of dollars from the Federal Government and it takes a concerted effort. I feel very confident that we will have Republican yes votes on that but would like the caucus to be able to support that too. The 211 System I think we have talked about this a lot. Does anyone have any questions about it or why we are giving it funding?
Ms. Freeman said my only question is about the future funding of that program where is that coming from?
Speaker Cowan said that is part of her presentation; we are really giving her the kickoff process. Then we will have to figure out the funding. The United Way will be doing fundraising to fund it. They may come back and ask for some more funding years down the line. Then the board at that time will decide what they want to do.
Mr. Palmer said I just wanted to clarify to be clear. First, we appropriate dollars one year at a time, we don’t appropriate three years unless we have an agreement in place which we didn’t have. This kind of got fast tracked; We were talking about it but then it was a floor amendment that moved this a little quicker. With, this funding year one. But Camelia’s proposal was that the County funds it for three years. That is why they were asking for some $900,000 and some thousand and between now and year four she is going to be fund raising building almost like an endowment. But then in year four her concept was United Way pays 51% and some other entities yet to be defined exactly would pay the 49%; so, there is skin in the game from United Way. That is where she threw out some examples of the County’s, County Municipalities. She even gave a breakdown of the per resident cost, but it wasn’t like we were going to ask the residents to give us that money directly, it was just an example of 22 cents per resident. Their ask for this year for funding, expect them to come back next year and ask for another year and in year three. By the time they get to year four they will have a plan on how it is sustainable. Without getting into the weeds there are some other issues related to this and other public safety call center stuff to be worked on. This is a good thing and I think it has bipartisan support and will probably go.
Speaker Cowan said I think that is all we have for Executive Committee.
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VIII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
4. Diversity & Inclusion
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
9. Ad-Hoc Reapportionment
10. Ad-Hoc Modern Housing Solutions
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
1. Speakers Update
Speaker Cowan said just a reminder if you are going to be absent from a meeting, please call staff. Also please call the leader or the committee chair; just so we have some idea before things happen if we have everyone in the room or not. I’ve talked with Mr. Fricilone and Ms. Mueller about this; we would like to move back to in person meetings in January. That gives everybody about six weeks. I know it will be an adjustment and we will make it through. In my comments at the end of the meeting tomorrow I will announce that. Mrs. Adams sent out an email today; the CED’s Annual Report event in on December 3rd it is a 7:00 a.m. breakfast meeting It is in Bolingbrook. If you would like to go, we are going to purchase a table as the County Board. The County Board can cover the cost of your ticket; I believe it is $35.00. We also have people say they are going to go and not show up. We don’t want a table with the County Board on it and nobody shows. Email Mrs. Adams and let her know. Check your schedules; I think it is a good event to be at. The one professional services contract that was not on the agenda this time around was our contract with Gary Mack our communications consultant. I want to explain what is going on there. Basically, we have been outsourcing our communications for ever. Through conversations with a lot of you over the last couple of year. There has been a lot of sentiment that perhaps bringing that inhouse would be better. But we hadn’t had the budget flexibility to do that. With Ms. Johannsen leaving that frees up a good chunk of budget and the Mack Contract itself is a hardy size. We would like to do some restructuring and one of those would be bringing communications in house; we have kind of a fuller plan developing but Mr. Palmer do you want to talk about that at all.
Mr. Palmer said just high level because it is still kind of being developed. We would have somewhat of a Budget Finance Position with restructured duties. Years ago, the Executive’s Office would present a budget and the Board would take it and run with it. In recent years the Executive’s Office Budget Director Ms. Howard worked closely with Ms. Johannsen and it was more one continuing process through the whole budget process. So, it wasn’t as great of a need to have a totally function. It was more collaborative. I think that is going to continue. We will still have a Budget Financial Analyst position; that person would work with the budget development but also throughout the year do financial analysis of things for the Board. If we are looking at a project, they can do their own review. They would also help with other financial work like paying bills and working on bonds with Ms. Hennessy and Ms. Howard. That would be one position; we are thinking of creating a second position which would be Communications/Research. This person could do all our press work; improve our website which needs some work; improve our social media which could use some work; but also work with Board Members on additional outreach or on the communications side. But also researching issues; so, when we have topics that come up at a committee that person could be assigned to do the additional research. That could be anything, NACo, regular research, this would build in more of a formal research component which we have talked about a lot. We believe we could do both of those positions better then we have had in the past as far as the overall flow of things between our existing staff; and probably save some money too.
Speaker Cowan stated the line is better services, more services, lower budget.
Ms. Tyson asked if this person would work with Mr. Brophy’s group, because they do invest and work with lots of money.
Speaker Cowan said we’ve had a finance and budget person all along; and that is not maybe really their role. They could certainly be involved with Mr. Brophy’s office and talk with them. But as the County Board Finance and Budget person their responsibility is tracking our budget departmentally; and making sure those bills are paid. Also being part of the budget setting process for the county whole.
Mr. Palmer said they wouldn’t be limited; they could work with Mr. Brophy, and other offices. That position has worked with all the Elected Officials in the past.
Speaker Cowan said the other thing, after Thursday’s meeting, Mr. Van Duyne, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Schaben, and me are going to sit down and talk about what our options are, if there are options for doing some or all evening meetings. I know people have a lot of different opinions on this; before we get into too heated of a discussion, we want to talk about what is even possible. We will keep you abreast of the conversation and come back to you with potentially some options and see what people think. This is certainly something we have talked about as a way of making meetings more accessible to the public.
Ms. Ventura asked the meetings in January when we go in person; are we going to have a zoom option for the public or is it all in person.
Speaker Cowan said I think our intention since we have the technology all set up now; we will continue to broadcast via WebEx. If you are a Board Member at home, you can watch over WebEx; but you will need to be in the room if you want to vote or comment. We will have to talk to Mrs. Tatroe if we are broadcasting over WebEx, we need to find out what we are required to allow or not. Our rules would have to go back to what they were previously.
Ms. Ventura asked if we have investigated a streaming service instead of WebEx. But then there is no public comment due to streaming.
Speaker Cowan said we haven’t looked at those options. It is something that we talked about originally.
Ms. Ventura asked for the night meetings, if that is approved would that be starting for 2022 or 2023.
Speaker Cowan said that is what we need to sit down and talk about. We basically must set the meeting schedule for 2022 so we could change when our meetings are happening.
Mrs. Adams stated I just need to publish that before the 1st.
X. PUBLIC COMMENT
For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Dan Jungles; I am a Deputy Chief with the Will County Sheriff’s Office. I’ve been with the Sheriff’s office going on 24 years. To be blunt I’m embarrassed as a Sheriff’s Office employee by the Sheriff’s pay. If you look
at the other Counties; McHenry is half the size of our County; that Sheriff makes $152,000 a year. Will County Sheriff’s Office is the second largest in the State. Just like the hospitals have a top 100 hospitals; we are the top of 100 jails in the nation. You are really pricing yourselves out of having a qualified (inaudible) when 85 employees make more than the sheriff, you’re not going to find that candidate in the sheriff’s office. I will tell you right now, a year ago, six months ago, 30 days ago I would have told you I’m going to run for sheriff when Sherriff Kelly is done. I don’t see that happening because there is no point for me to take that position just to be the sheriff. Reason being it will affect people’s pensions. You’re going to have candidates putting in for that position. (Inaudible) with one having no business being in the position because they are an eight year deputy or ten-year deputy; they make less than the sheriff automatically; so, it is going to be a raise. Or you are going to get these Chiefs coming in from other municipalities wanting to be sheriff collecting a six-figure pension from locations like Schaumburg Police Department, or Chicago Police Department; whatever Police Department there is, to be the sheriff in this county. I know no one likes to double dip when it comes to pensions; especially when you are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. But you are limiting the potential candidates from coming into the ranks of the Sheriff’s Office. If anyone was around here when Fitzgerald was the Sherriff; that was the Sheriff that was involved in the MOB; he was the worse Sherriff in this County. Because he came from outside; there are things in the Sheriff’s Office that the other Chiefs don’t have any knowledge of. There is Court House security, there is the jail aspect of it, which is an entirely different beast itself. I would encourage you guys to vote for this; I know that we have been talking to the Republican side of the aisle. I know that there is a group of them that are for this issue; a raise itself. That is all I have to say.
Ms. Staley Ferry stated during the Finance meeting there were issues about the vote-by mail proposal, also the current salaries. I wanted to make sure I was here tonight in case there were any questions or any confusion regarding the vote-by-mail proposal and the equipment. We thought it was very clear what was reported to everybody, but not sure
with the comments during the Finance hearing. Obviously, you guys are voting on the Budget Thursday and wanted to make sure if there are any questions. Mr. Pelkie or I could clarify that.
Speaker Cowan said let’s pause there; let’s make sure everybody knows what she is talking about.
Ms. Ventura said I can give an assessment of what happened. Mr. Fricilone had brought up that he wanted the funding for the 211 System and the CAC to come from the million dollars that was going to be bid from the Clerk when she had presented the vote-by-mail. There was conversation about that, and I too was under the assumption that we were saving money. Mr. Pelkie and Ms. Staley Ferry went through it; how we were talking about how we must hire Election Judges and we went through some of the numbers. Ultimately the Finance Department said we want to fund these services, these three things if we can’t take money from the Clerk area then Ms. Howard can find us the money. It was left at that.
Ms. Mueller said there seems to be some confusion on how the savings was presented. My understanding was we are saving money in the future by not having to hire these people. Not that Ms. Staley Ferry suddenly has a million dollars in her budget that we can spend.
Speaker Cowan said that the budget was going to increase.
Ms. Mueller said right; the budget was going to increase by that much in the future years because we are (inaudible) now it is all going to be faster because we have the equipment so we can save having to hire those people in the future. That is how I understood it; apparently other people didn’t understand it that way.
Ms. Ventura said to the point though the Republicans put out if that was the case then in May the initial budget; I am not sure if the budget shows the million more in employment.
Mr. Pelkie replied that’s not accurate either; it is kind of a misrepresentation. I think the proposal that we put forward was comprehensive and included cost savings that were not actually in our budget. For example, the largest share of the savings that we included in our budget was postage. Vote-by-mail automation is going to save us $180,000 per election if we are looking at 125,000 vote-by-mail ballots. $180,000 in cost in terms of postage; we don’t pay postage out of our budget. The suggestion was somehow that the County Board should reach into the County Clerk’s Budget and yank that money out of the County Clerk’s Budget when it is in the Executive’s Budget; it is in Records Management Budget. That was part of our future savings. We also included in their savings in terms of comp time. Well comp time is a tangible financial liability, but it is not a budget you reach into and take out and pay something else. It is something that we must essentially spend down. It is not actual funding that you are able to get a hold of. I think there was some misrepresentations about what it is that we were talking about. I think that we were very clear that we were talking about future costs. We incurred these cost one time. These costs were based upon what happened in 2020 and a 300% or 310% increase in vote-by-mail ballot request. Fortunately for the County we didn’t have to pay those costs. Those were all funded out of CARES ACT Funding at that point. So, we did not include that money into future budget. We had great conversations with Leadership; we sat down with Leadership and talked about the fact that we could continue to pay for a manual process into infinity. And we would incur those $500,000 costs plus if the vote by-mail ballot increase request into the future; or we could pay this all down in the course of a two-to-three-year period and be done by 2024 and never have to incur those costs. Those are the savings that we talked about and were clear about right from the get-go.
Ms. Staley Ferry said we just wanted to clarify any of that. To make sure everybody understood the vote-by-mail proposal, and then our budget too. My budget in the County Clerk’s Office has the two; the 410 and 411. If anybody wants to understand how that works or whatever we can definitely talk to you about that; but it is different. Because with our elections budget and our regular general budget. I know that Ms. Ventura had questions about salaries; we just wanted to make sure you understood how that works.
Ms. Ventura said I understand I made all my comments in the committee. I got it pretty clear on my questions.
Ms. Staley Ferry said well, it was inaccurate. So, I just wanted to make sure you understood that.
Ms. Ventura asked what was inaccurate; the million dollars in each of funds and it increases.
Ms. Staley Ferry interrupted there aren’t increases. Zero increases in my salaries in each budget. That’s why I am not sure that you understand that.
Ms. Ventura said oh I understand it; okay I read the numbers directly off the budget book in committee. So, what are you challenging me on here? At the end of the day my comments were Ms. Howard if you can’t figure out (inaudible) if not can we please find the funding. Would you have preferred me to say something else Ms. Staley Ferry?
Ms. Staley Ferry said I guess that’s not.
Mr. Pelkie interrupted I don’t know where you saw a million dollars. Ms. Staley Ferry said I’m not sure either.
Ms. Ventura said it was in the entry; $1 million was the final amount of each of those funds. Was it election funds; I didn’t bring my budget book today, but I am happy to pull it up if you want?
Ms. Staley Ferry replied well darn.
Ms. Ventura said I will pull it up then.
At this juncture one of the Cunty Board Members took out their budget book.
Ms. Staley Ferry said in the salary lines I’m not sure. But that is what I meant I don’t think that you understand. Show me in here that there is $1 million dollars that we could give away.
Ms. Ventura replied that is not what I said when we were talking about salaries. I’m happy to pull it up. (inaudible) with a 20% increase on that is a million dollars.
Ms. Staley Ferry asked where, where, where, where. A 20% increase in those lines.
Ms. Ventura said you have year to date; and then I read these off. On the 2021 versus what you have right here. Okay, these were the numbers that I read off you got 333 versus 680; you’ve got 657 versus $1 million; and I said unless you have another election coming up this year; this is the final amount.
Speaker Cowan interrupted and advised Ms. Ventura and Ms. Staley Ferry that the microphone was being moved to pick up the conversation for the meeting minutes.
Ms. Ventura stated I did the same thing for the election; I literally read them off in committee. Like I said at the end on the day.
Ms. Staley Ferry replied nope, nope, nope, nope.
Ms. Ventura found the page she was looking for and stated I read this number.
Ms. Staley Ferry said this is my Front Office staff.
Ms. Ventura continued I read this number, and this number. I added them up and compared them to this number; it was 20% higher. Saying I don’t understand it challenging my knowledge of this Ms. Staley Ferry; is it getting you what you want?
Mr. Pelkie said it’s your year-to-date number.
Ms. Staley Ferry said you don’t need to give me anything Ms. Ventura; I am asking you to understand our budget. So, this is a one year, election year, 2022 is a two-year election year. So, it is always going to increase there. Does that make since?
Ms. Ventura asked what is it that you want Ms. Staley Ferry?
Ms. Ferry stated I want you to understand the budget; that’s all. Does that make since?
Ms. Ventura asked are you really calling me out and saying I don’t understand this budget.
Ms. Staley Ferry said no, I am just asking if you understand the budget? I am asking you, does that make sense? This is one year election year; this is two-year election.
Speaker Cowan added that is two elections.
Ms. Ventura said no, I am clear on that.
Speaker Cowan said there is an increase because there are two elections. Ms. Staley Ferry said right, exactly. So that is why it is more.
Ms. Ventura said so when I read these numbers off in committee and said that; your answer was because of collective bargaining.
Ms. Staley Ferry said which is also included in these numbers, which I confirmed with Ms. Howard.
Ms. Ventura stated when I asked that we are talking about a 20% in collective bargaining. These were my comments; I would be happy to look back at the minutes. Implying that I don’t understand the budget now; when the answers that you gave in committee were different.
Ms. Staley Ferry stated they are not different; they are not different, and I didn’t; I really don’t think that we spoke in committee, on this; it was not vote-by-mail related either.
Speaker Cowan asked what we need to clarify the vote for Thursday.
Ms. Ventura stated I’m not sure because at the end of committee my answer; like I said just now; was great can Ms. Howard find us the money. Then they said yes; and then it was going to move forward with that. Which is why I don’t understand why she is challenging my knowledge on this. When it seemed like
Ms. Staley Ferry interrupted and asked who challenged. Ms. Ventura there is no challenge if you would like to leave.
Ms. Ventura stated oh no I am happy to sit here and go through it; and go through the minutes with you.
Ms. Staley Ferry stated that is fine; that’s fine.
Ms. Mueller stated I am in charge of the meeting; that is not how are going to spending it right now; I am sorry. Do we have any other public Comment?
Mr. Brophy stated I just want to echo the philosophy that was in the Deputy Sheriff’s comments about salaries and compensation, Ms. Ventura wasn’t here earlier; almost unanimously your caucus except for one undecided; has agreed to support a 3% raise for the Sheriff in each of the next four years. And a three 3% raise for the Clerk and the Treasure not getting until Dec 1, 2024; so that it coincided with the other Countywide Elect’s. I wanted to echo those comments; (inaudible) that you must look at a talent pool that want to do these jobs and I don’t think you want Countywide Electeds that are ill equipped or unqualified to carry out the state statute obligations.
Ms. Ventura asked who the undecided vote was.
Mr. Brophy stated Mr. Van Duyne.
Speaker Cowan said and me.
Ms. Mueller said Speaker Cowan and Ms. Koch were also undecided. Mr. Brophy stated I am sorry.
Mr. Ventura said so I guess this is what I am going to say about that. I did vote against Mr. Van Duyne’s motion. Ms. Koch, Ms. Traynere, and I have taken some very serious grief for that. We did that because we believe that these should be not as a countywide, but County Board should be full time valued employees. I agree that you can serve your country as a political person. But it should not be a part time job; it should not be a balance your job. We don’t need a balance your government. That is part of the problem that we have across our country. I had an opinion of for these raises back in 2018; and Ms. Staley Ferry who just walked out of here voted absent on those raises. I am very upset with the way that maybe our caucus has handled this and our messaging on this. That it really should be about the value that politicians bring to our government. It makes it hard for me to vote for this when nobody wanted to stand up. Look I didn’t vote for my own raise; I am not running for this position again. But I am taking the heat for it. I’m not attacking you (Mr. Brophy) but where were you; where was Ms. Staley Ferry, and where was Chief Kelly when we were having those conversations for the County Board raises?
Speaker Cowan said and in the previous years when the Republicans were in control. Mr. Brophy asked when just recently.
Ms. Ventura said yes in this year; in the last three months.
Mr. Brophy said I don’t have a voice at County Board.
Ms. Ventura said my point is, where were we at messaging. Where were the Democrats at messaging the importance of paying our politicians a living wage; by staying with inflation, by increasing our wages to meet inflation. Where was that messaging?
Mr. Brophy stated in my first survey that I did, I included Countywides and County Board. I showed an average of County Board to our comparative counties. I did that research and I shared. (Inaudible conversation)
Ms. Ventura said I am not angry at you; I am angry that we did not message this to the public; it’s the public opinion; that is who we must sway here. It is not the Republicans; we have the votes; we have the votes. Right, we have fourteen people. It was our job to pull our caucus together and message the importance of these salaries. We failed at that.
Speaker Cowan stated I will go one step further than that Ms. Ventura; because I see what you are saying. When we had the conversation about County Board salaries; I am going to be blunt here; The County Executive called members of this caucus and said if you put raises for the County Board that she would veto the map. So, where is our own party support when it comes to County Board raises. That is a little tough for me because I agree with what Ms. Ventura is saying, but when we aren’t even getting support from the people when it comes to our raises; we were not only not getting support; we were getting push back. It’s tough.
Ms. Mueller added push back from our own Party.
Mr. Brophy said I wasn’t aware of that.
Ms. Ventura stated I am not going to retaliate; oh, I’m going to stick it to them because they didn’t help me; because that’s not who I am; but it is unfortunate not only at the County level but across the County we are failing at our messaging; we do good things, we have good policies, we are good people, we suck at messaging any of that. So, when it comes down to the public believing in us, coming out for us, understanding the policies, understanding raises, they don’t and that’s on us. It makes it hard for me to vote for this now because I am already taking the heat for the last vote. I will consider it and I think it is very unfortunate.
Mr. Brophy said that’s alright I just wanted to get everyone to talk about it. Ms. Ventura stated I did read your email and it was very on point.
Mr. Van Duyne said as you know I invited Mr. Schultz tonight to come and speak but we are not allowed to talk about Forest Preserve because it wasn’t on the agenda, which is perfectly fine. What I would like to say is we do have a meeting before full County Board; at 9:00 a.m. There was a lot of work put into the agenda. If you guys have any issues with what is presented would you, please feel free to call Mr. Schultz and talk to him one on one.
Speaker Cowan said let’s reiterate; instead of 9:30 a.m. for the County Board Meeting we will need everybody either present or on-line at 9:00 a.m. for a Special Forest Preserve Meeting.
Mr. Van Duyne said let’s say 8:45 a.m.
Speaker Cowan said and we need a majority of the Board; we need 14 votes to pass this budget. Not a majority of who’s present. if you can’t be there, please let people know. If we don’t have 14 people, I will be voting no.
Mr. Van Duyne said like I said if you have any issues, please give Mr. Schultz a call and he will explain everything.
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn @ 7:33 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Mueller, Newquist, Koch, Tyson, Harris, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Ventura, Marcum, Cowan, Freeman ABSENT: Traynere, Winfrey, Coleman |
Alerts Sign-up