Will County Board met Jan. 6.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Sherry Newquist | District 1 (D - Steger) | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | District 1 (R - Monee) | Late | |
| Amanda Koch | District 2 (D - Frankfort) | Late | |
| Jim Moustis | District 2 (R - Frankfort) | Present | |
| Raquel M. Mitchell | District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) | Late | |
| Margaret Tyson | District 3 (D - Bolingbrook) | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) | Present | |
| Gretchen Fritz | District 5 (R - Plainfield) | Absent | |
| Meta Mueller | District 5 (D - Aurora) | Present | |
| Donald Gould | District 6 (R - Shorewood) | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | District 6 (D - Wilmington) | Absent | |
| Steve Balich | District 7 (R - Homer Glen) | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | District 7 (R - Homer Glen) | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | District 8 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | District 8 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Annette Parker | District 9 (R - Crest Hill) | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | District 9 (D - Joliet) | Late | |
| Natalie Coleman | District 10 (D - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | District 10 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | District 11 (R - Naperville) | Present | |
| Mimi Cowan | Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | District 12 (R - New Lenox) | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | District 12 (R - New Lenox) | Present | |
| Mica Freeman | District 13 (D - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Debbie Kraulidis | District 13 (R - Joliet) | Present |
Member Balich led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. DECLARING QUORUM PRESENT
V. MOTION TO PLACE ON FILE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
| RESULT: APPROVED [21 TO 0]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, District 8 (D - Joliet) SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) AYES: Newquist, Koch, Moustis, Tyson, Traynere, Mueller, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman, Kraulidis ABSENT: Fritz, VanDuyne AWAY: Ogalla, Mitchell |
VII. OLD BUSINESS
Speaker Cowan stated as everyone knows, this is the ARPA consultant contract. A revised version was distributed last night with some of the requests from the County Board for the changes, so I assume County Board members were fine with those last minute changes.
Mr. Mitch Schaben stated I want to give a high-level overview of the different terms within the contract. On October 15, the county completed an RFQ seeking qualifications from firms to assist the county in developing a comprehensive plan to align (inaudible) short-term and long-term strategic investments using the federally funded provided funds from the American Rescue Plan also known as ARPA. The firm will also be assisting with implementation of that ARPA plan. A selection committee was created that included members of the County Board, the County Executive and the County Auditor. The selection committee interviewed six firms and narrowed the list to three. They received three pricing proposals from that list of three and ranked those three firms based on the pricing proposals. The firm that ranked first on the list was Anser Advisory, which the contract before you today is from that entity. The contract is the result of negotiations with Anser. The contract is similar in nature to that of the contract for consulting services that the county had for the CARES funds, between the county and the Bronner Group. In that, it has a defined term of two years, with a maximum price of $1.5 million, which is 1.3% of the total ARPA allocation of $133 million. The fees are dependent on the level of involvement from Anser. In other words, we are billed for the hours that we request of Anser. The weighted hourly rate is approximately $200.00 an hour, so the county has roughly 7,500 billable hours available under the terms of the contract. The draft contract was submitted to the State’s Attorney’s office on December 13 for review and the County Board on December 15; requested changes as Speaker Cowan acknowledged came from the County Board, which are reflected in the draft attached agenda. Again, just to summarize those requests, it was more of a technical clarification to clarify the relationship and how Anser would interact with both the County Executive’s office and the County Board. We do have representatives from Anser on this meeting and I’m happy to answer any questions.
Member Moustis stated the only question I have is if the State’s Attorney’s office has any comments or if they’re signing off on the contract to go forward?
Mr. Mitch Schaben stated that is specified in the resolution that the contract would be subject to review and approval by the State’s Attorney’s office. We would not enter into any contract without the approval of the State’s Attorney’s office.
Member Moustis stated I’m just wondering if they have any comments at this time.
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated I have taken a look at it, but we have multiple people in the office looking at it so I don’t have any substantive comments at this time.
Member Moustis stated my preference is that before we vote on something in this nature, that the State’s Attorney’s office signs off. I realize they have to review it before it gets executed, but I don’t like voting on these types of contracts without first getting input from the State’s Attorney’s office. If that means it’s two weeks from now; we’ve waited this long, what’s another two more weeks?
Assistant State’s Attorney Myers stated I did take a look after this morning’s meeting. Unfortunately, Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe is out of the office. I am not sure, I did check with other attorneys whether they had reviewed this. I am not sure whether Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe has done any review on this either.
Speaker Cowan stated the final rules for ARPA came out today or yesterday, so I just wanted to highlight that for everyone. It’s kind of good that we’ve waited this far because then we’re not running up against the rules not being finally out, and I think we’re in line with a lot of counties who waited to get rolling on this. I don’t know if Member Winfrey wanted to talk at all about her involvement with NACo and their involvement with getting these rules out and making sure they’re protecting counties, but I know that’s been an important part of her work in the last few months too.
Member Newquist stated I just have a clarifying question. If we did approve this today, wouldn’t a stipulation on this be that the State’s Attorney’s office would have to approve it? Let’s say we did vote to approve it today with that stipulation and they didn’t approve it, then what happens? Do we come back and renegotiate and revote?
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated the State’s Attorney has had the contract. The changes we received, they probably received yesterday. This is based on timing and response that we have received, but yes, they will review it. We will not be signing anything that they do not feel is necessary to be in there or is in our best interest.
Member Newquist stated I think I’m comfortable voting on this since it’s not getting signed until it’s approved anyway just in the interest of moving forward with this. Thank you.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated there have been no substantial changes. The only changes are the requested changes that came to us last night and were just adding County Board in that language.
Member Balich stated I read it and I don’t see any problems with it. I’ll make a motion to move forward pending if there’s a problem with the State’s Attorney then we don’t proceed. If there’s not, we just keep moving forward.
Member Brooks stated are we under any time restraints as far as dispersing this money? Do we have plenty of time?
Mr. Mitch Schaben stated I believe Member Winfrey would be best to answer this, but from my understanding of the ruling that came out, the county is required to obligate it by a certain date. I believe it’s within the next two years. That doesn’t mean we have to spend the money; we just have to obligate it and notify the feds on how that money is allocated.
Member Winfrey stated I’ll just add to that. Any money that is not spent can be spent based on the final ruling through 2024. Any money that was spent prior, for example, we spent some money in the Clerk’s office. That is governed by the rule that was already in place. We don’t have to redo anything or change anything for that. We are good all the way around. Whether we already spent it or didn’t spend it yet, we are in compliance either way.
Member Fricilone stated I agree with Member Moustis, and I think some people are getting confused. This is not a committee meeting. This is a County Board meeting. If we vote to approve this, it’s approved, pending what the State’s Attorney’s office says, but if the State’s Attorney’s office says we have some problems here, we already approved it. I don’t think that’s a good practice. That’s what Member Moustis is saying. If this were a committee meeting and we were moving it forward to the County Board, there would be time for them to review it. I thought it was already reviewed and now we’re saying no. How can we vote on a contract that isn’t reviewed and be done with it? This is a County Board meeting, not a committee meeting.
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated certainly if the County Board approves the contract subject to legal review by the State’s Attorney’s office, in essence, the Board is putting a condition precedent on the execution of the contract. For example, if the County Board approves it subject to review of the State’s Attorney’s office and let’s say the contract is insufficient or something is missing, then the County Executive is not authorized to execute the contract.
Member Fricilone stated that’s my point. So why are we even voting on it?
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated if the contract does fall through the review and it’s fine, there’s no need for another meeting, and the County Executive with the condition precedent removed, can execute the contract.
Speaker Cowan stated the resolution says, “the agreement is subject to review and approval of the Will County State’s Attorney’s office.” So, just following up on what Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles just said.
Member Traynere stated I guess my question is, here we are having a special Board meeting and we’re not really ready to approve it because the State’s Attorney hasn’t signed off yet. I’m just wondering why we’re having this special meeting. Why wouldn’t we have just waited? Maybe there’s other pressing stuff that we’re going to talk about later that someone can explain. I just don’t understand why we are having a special board meeting for something that hasn’t been approved yet. That’s my only concern. Thank you.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated I’m going to try to address this in a nice manner. When we get things, we depend on other people to respond and get back to us. We’re only as capable as we get information. At the same time, I know the County Board staff has to try to get a meeting together and work with multiple people to try to get these meetings together. I called it at the request of the County Board. There’re no substantial changes in the contract. It’s the same standard language in that resolution that we always use.
Member Traynere stated you’re saying that Speaker Cowan called this meeting?
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated I called the meeting based on County Board availability. When we had the last meeting, it was decided we would have a special meeting to approve this contract and give people more time to review it. Based on when feedback came back to us, we are working within the matrix we are given. The contract hasn’t changed other than a few minor requests that came to us late. We sent it to the State’s Attorney to review them. Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe is on vacation. I called the meeting to make it more convenient rather than for the County Board members to have to go through the motion of getting the required members to call a meeting. I was working in tandem with the County Board. We’re trying to do this together.
Member Fricilone stated did the State’s Attorney’s office look at it before we made our comments and were they okay with it then?
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated they had the contract before the changes were made.
Member Ogalla stated when I look at the resolution it does say, “Be it further resolved that said agreement is subject to review and approval of the Will County State’s Attorney.” So, if they aren’t happy with it then you obviously won’t sign it and it will come back for another time. Is it attached here with the redline changes? Ok, so I don’t see what the problem is.
Member Moustis stated I would like to touch on communication a little bit. We can only respond to as we get information. I realize there is discussion between leadership and the Executive’s office, but that’s not a discussion with the County Board members. It’s very difficult for leadership to disseminate information to the Board because of the Open Meetings Act. We have to do it at committee. We can’t go back into an office and discuss it. Yes, it’s a process that takes longer, but it’s the law, as Speaker Cowan frequently points out to us. So when there’s communication between leadership of the County Board and the Executive’s office, that’s not a communication to the County Board. It’s just not. That’s why leadership has to bring it back to committee so we can have a discussion. This is the first opportunity the County Board membership has had the ability to ask questions or express concerns. This is why I’m not prepared to vote on this, because it’s the first information I’ve really received. I was just able to read the revised version between the Executive Committee meeting and this meeting. I think we should keep that in mind. To suggest this has been communicated…it’s not a discussion that has been taken with the full body of the County Board. I just want to point that out. Thank you.
Member Brooks stated Speaker Cowan read the first paragraph of the resolution. I do understand the Open Meetings Act, I do get why we’re here. However, if everyone looks at that first paragraph, that makes me comfortable about going ahead and letting the State’s Attorney do their job. Thank you.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated just a quick remember that since this was attached to the December Board meeting, since then, the only change was the scope to include the County Board from leadership in the language. That is the only change that has been made with this contract that was on your December Board meeting packet.
Member Berkowicz stated I have a question about the rate. I believe it’s on the attachment, but I can’t find it. I think it was said $200.00 an hour. My inquiry is, is that competitive compared to the other vendors that came forward?
Mr. Mitch Schaben stated there were two pricing proposals that came in identical. Within those pricing proposals, each team laid out the different hourly rates for the different team members. When I mentioned in my opening comments that the rate of $200.00 an hour, that’s the average of their entire project team. It is competitive with the other pricing proposals that we did see.
1. 21-445 Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Contract with the ARPA Consultant - Attachment Updated
| RESULT: APPROVED [19 TO 2]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Tyson, Mueller, Gould, Balich, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman, Kraulidis NAYS: Moustis, Fricilone ABSENT: Fritz, VanDuyne AWAY: Mitchell, Traynere |
IX. NEW BUSINESS
Speaker Cowan stated I am going to ask for an amendment to the resolution. I want to give everyone a little bit of background on that, so that folks understand why the State’s Attorney’s office has asked us to amend this resolution a little bit more than our normal. The fourth paragraph of declaring the vacancy, is says, “Be it further resolved that the vacancy be filled within sixty days of the vacancy date and the appointment of the County Executive.” I’m going to make a motion to remove the phrase “of the County Executive” and I’ll have Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles weigh in and see if that’s the appropriate amendment to make. The background to this, as most of you know, Will County is one of two counties in Illinois with the Executive form of government. For the last however many years, when we’ve had vacancies on the County Board, the resolution, as it’s written, is how we’ve dealt with that. The County Executive has made the appointment and the County Board retains advice and consent. There’s currently an ongoing lawsuit in Champaign County about this process and most recently an appellate court ruled that the appointment for vacancies on the County Board should actually be made by the County Board Chair, in our case that would be the Speaker. This is at odds with a trial court ruling and kind of at odds with our standard operating of business and it’s not really a settled matter at this point. Our State’s Attorney’s opinion, I believe, is to ask us to be vague about who is making the appointment. The appointment will be made, and the County Board will have advice and consent and we will work together to get to that point. Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles, do you feel it is the appropriate motion to ask for? To just strike the phrase “of the County Executive?”
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated I would ask that the language…I would strike out after the word “date” and in place of “By appointment of the County Executive” I would put “Pursuant to Illinois law with the advice and consent of the County Board.” That would be my recommended amendment to the resolution.
Speaker Cowan stated so it should read” “Within 60 days of the vacancy date pursuant to Illinois law with the advice and consent of the County Board.” Is that correct?
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated that is correct.
Speaker Cowan stated I would like to make a motion to amend the resolution as indicated.
Member Moustis stated maybe you can clarify it a little further for me. Is that the appellate court rule? But then there’s the county code and the Executive Act. In the Executive Act it talks about appointments. I really think the appointments are to the Board, it’s not appointments to replace a position on the County Board. That would be like the Governor replaces a legislator without the legislature. When you say pursuant to law, what law are you talking about?
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated the office is currently reviewing. There’s a lot of moving parts to this decision. The Champaign County case came down relatively recently and we are trying to look at some of the different statutes that are involved and past practices and other material. The office is going to be coming out with an opinion on this next week. By leaving the phrase in, “pursuant to Illinois law” we are still declaring the vacancy, but the resolution is indicating we’re going to follow Illinois law in making the appointment. By keeping the resolution wording as it is, it’s making it a little bit more generic than being very specific as it may have been done in the past.
Member Moustis stated I’ve been around for quite a few Board member appointments. In the past, yes, the County Executive brought the name forward but, the County Executive always took the recommendation. They just brought a name forward that was brought forward by the political party which came through central committee’s recommendations and through the appropriate caucus on the County Board. That was the practice, but it doesn’t show that. So when you talk about practice, the practice of what the resolution said or the procedures that were done? That’s where I think the practice part becomes a little gray. My feeling is, the State’s Attorney’s office is going to look at that resolution and say, “That was your practice.” But it was not the process. I have a lot of concerns in that regard. I actually think that the state statute and the appointment of a County Board member, I don’t think the intent was to have the County Executive bring an appointment forward and then say, “you can say yes or no.” I think this is extremely important in the sense of separation of power. The County Executive is a separate branch of government. Perhaps someone is suggesting that, that separate branch of government has the authority to appoint to another branch of government. Unlike the Executive’s office that has separate council, the County Board doesn’t have the ability to have separate council and perhaps get different interpretations. I’m not feeling good about this, but it’s better than saying “the County Executive.” When the State’s Attorney’s office reviews this, please take past practice and what really occurred in the process of appointments and every County Executive that I have served under, this was pretty much a County Board caucus and central committee process, and generally whatever party was not appointing it. In this case the Republicans vote the Democratic appointment, and we would pretty much agree with the Democratic caucus on how they want to move forward. I just want to point some of these areas out because I think it’s grayer than you may think.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we recognize the situation is not ideal. We’re in a little better situation in that the County Executive is a Democrat, and the Speaker is a Democrat as well. This may or may not give you peace of mind. I recognize that anything I do has to go in front of this County Board for approval. I can assure you in this process it’s not going to be a decision that I am going to put someone forward that’s going to have to be embarrassed and be turned down by the Democratic Caucus. It does not separate the fact that this situation does need to be resolved but unfortunately, we have a court case, they have requested to go to the Supreme Court, but we wanted to declare this vacancy because I’m sure people on this Board don’t want me to be the tie breaker, until the Supreme Court rules on something. I can assure you that I recognize fully that this has to go to the County Board. I plan to work with the Speaker and the Democratic caucus in this process to get us through this vacancy. I fully understand there needs to be some clarifying language moving forward.
Member Moustis stated like you mentioned, it is a Democratic caucus and a Democratic political process, but what if it were Republican and you decide what Republican is going to sit that seat? Or let’s say we have a Republican County Executive, Should he or she be deciding who the replacement is for the Democratic caucus? You have to look beyond the current situation, I suppose. When you get these ideas that one particular party is going to hold these seats forever, you should think again. At any rate, I’ve expressed my concerns and I understand what you’re saying. Thank you.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated that is obviously a very real concern. We understand the language probably needs to be clarified.
Member Balich stated that amendment thing is garbage. There are unintended consequences with everything you do. For the County Board to do appointments…I don’t want to see that. What about the Fire Districts, the Sanitary Districts…so in other words the County Board is going to start checking in to all of that and making the appointments? That’s kind of the impression that I’m getting. I like it the way it was. When former County Executive Larry Walsh was in charge, he made the appointment and we had to vote on it. If it was a Democrat seat it went Democrat, if it was Republican, he got a Republican. I don’t see why we have to change it. It seems stupid to me. I don’t understand why we would change in midstream and let the County Board be the one that does everything. I think it’s good that the County Executive has to answer to us, so if you don’t like it, you can vote “no” to her stuff.
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated the appointment process, there are certain requirements in the statue and filling different vacancies for different offices is different. For example, in the state legislature the party committees make the appointments to the state legislative office. At the county level it’s done different. Statutes have different requirements for different offices. If there’s a vacancy declared on the County Board, it is (inaudible) on the statute the party chairman of the respective parties be notified of the vacancy. That’s not going to change, that’s Illinois law. If it’s a Republican seat that’s open, the statute requires that a Republican be appointed in its place. If it’s a Democratic seat, it’s required that a Democrat be placed. None of those things are changing. This appellate court decision, it’s essentially an issue regarding the reading of the County Executive and the county’s code. Our office is trying to reconcile that decision with our ordinances and other laws and we going to come to an opinion, and we will share it as soon as it is done.
Member Traynere stated are we trying to change something because I am the Chair of the DuPage Democrats and this County Board seat in County Board District #4 is in my district. No one has come to me at any point to talk to any of our elected precinct committeemen about who might be interested about being appointed to this position. I want to make that very clear for the record. No one has spoken to me about this.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated today we are just declaring a vacancy.
Member Ventura stated I agree with Member Moustis on some of this. My concern has always been the way this is interpreted. Member Tatroe heard from me the last time, as well as Ms. Nora Gruenberg and Mr. Bill Thoman before that. I felt that this language really does need to be more clarified. It is unusual that in a government process like this, we are discussing a political process, but yet here it is. I would prefer us to actually work something through the Legislative Committee for Will County to ask the state to further clarify this process. In my opinion what needs to be done is that they ask the party chair to submit the name to the Executive via a vote of the precinct committee people and then the Executive would bring that name forward for the County Board to approve. That put the hands back into the people who elected the precinct committee people who are either in that area or across the county where the precinct committee people can decide. I guess a state legislator can discuss or legislative committee can discuss how they want to move that forward. I think most of us agree that more opportunities for democracy is always best. I think that’s what I’m hearing Member Balich say. Why are we just picking a name out of the air, if there’s an opportunity for an elected body to do that, that would be great. But of course, the checks and balances come in where the Board would approve if the Executive would have any question about the name being submitted, they could discuss it with the party chair and make sure we have a qualified person being submitted and the County Board would approve that person. At the end of the day, it would be the voters to elected their precinct committee people to make that vote. That’s my personal and political opinion. I know that’s not what’s being asked of today. It also does seem a little vague when Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles said the state law dictates, but then we are actually waiting for court rulings and other court (inaudible). I would be okay if we even changed the amendment just for this vote to end it at date and not even say pursuant whether it’s a state law or the court law or the existing law. Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles you can correct me if I’m wrong, but do we even need that if we’re just making the announcement that this is a vacancy and in 60 days a name will come forward. Do we even have to say how that name will be coming forward?
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated I think that the way it’s phrased currently is to a certain extent is generic. I know the County Board office and our office we all want to follow the correct procedure in following up with this vacancy. As has been stated, there is a court decision that was released by the Illinois Appellate Court in the Fourth District, which is the district that covers Springfield and some of the counties in the middle of the state. It concerns Champaign County, which has the same County Executive style of government that we have here in Will County. The decision is a recent one and we want to see what the effect that decision has on this appointment process. By changing the language, by striking out “by the County Executive,” and instead putting in its place, “pursuant to Illinois law,” it allows the Board to declare the vacancy as it should and gives the room for everyone to follow the correct procedure at the time that the person’s name does get pulled forward.
Member Ventura stated to clarify that, when the courts interpret the language, is that determined as state law? It may be interpreting something that is written differently than state law. So by us saying, “by state law” that is encompassing whatever agreement the court might make?
Assistant State’s Attorney Pyles stated and “pursuant to Illinois law” we are taking into account all the Illinois statutes and all the Illinois case law that touch on this subject, correct.
Member Ventura stated for that reason, I guess, is why I seconded the amendment, but I will continue to put it out there to the Board that I think between now and the next time we ever have to do an appointment, we should ask the state legislature to correct this. Since no other counties seem to be putting in their opinion at this time, perhaps this is a time where Will County could take the lead on this at being one of the only two counties with this form of government, outside of Cook County. Maybe we could take this through a legislative committee, have our County Board members give our opinions and come to some type of agreement as to how we’d like the state to reward that and send it off with the legislative session and hopefully in the future things like this won’t make a difference. Those are my comments, thank you.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated just remember, we are declaring a vacancy today. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this?
Member Brooks stated I am ready to call the question.
Member Mitchell stated if we’re just declaring a vacancy in District 4, why do we need a State’s Attorney? Apparently, there’s a little bit more to it than just saying there’s a vacancy in this district. So, whatever the hang up is, we should probably fix that first to determine how we’re going to handle the vacancy. As far as Member Traynere goes, I completely understand, as a chairperson, I would like somebody to come to me and ask me to fill the vacancy in my district. That completely makes sense.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we are just here today to determine the vacancy. The process of how we fill that vacancy is usually internal with each of the caucuses to bring a name forward by the County Executive at one time to be approved by the entire Board. This is not a one-man show, it’s not a one-man decision, this is a group decision like we always do with all of our resolutions.
Speaker Cowan stated I wanted to quickly address Member Balich’s question about not wanting to change the whole process, but I did want to clarify that in my understanding, this lawsuit is not about who appoints for Fire Districts and all the associated boards and commissions with county government. This is actually only about who appoints in the case of a vacancy of an elected official. It’s only County Board members or like a countywide elected office. Also, today we are not changing anything. We are not changing our process at all right now. As has been stated, we are leaving the option open to make sure we are following the law, and the State’s Attorney is going to come back to us with a reading of what they think that law is at the current moment. Today we are just declaring this vacancy. Given all the questions, and you can see how much confusion there is over this because of this lawsuit, we will most certainly be talking about this more at a later date. I appreciate everybody being willing to engage in the conversation.
1. 22-1 Declaring a Vacancy in District #4
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [18 TO 2]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort) SECONDER: Raquel M. Mitchell, District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Traynere, Mueller, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman, Kraulidis NAYS: Ogalla, Balich ABSENT: Fritz, VanDuyne LEFT MEETING: Gould, Winfrey, Parker |
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT RELEVANT TO MATTERS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY
Mr. Kyle Claire expressed his concern with the Will County Health Department and the COVID-19 vaccine.
XII. COMMENTS BY COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS
XIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAJORITY LEADER, MINORITY LEADER AND COUNTY BOARD SPEAKER
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION - NECESSARY
XV. ADJOURNMENT
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4229&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up