Will County Board met Dec. 5.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. PROCESSION AND INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY ELECTED/RE-ELECTED COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS BY COUNTY EXECUTIVE JENNIFER BERTINO-TARRANT
County Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated welcome to the Reorganization Meeting of the Will County Board of December 5, 2022. At this time, I will be introducing the newly elected and re-elected County Board members. District 1, Katie Dean-Schlottman, Joe VanDuyne; District 2, Judy Ogalla, Frankie Pretzel; District 3, Daniel J. Butler, Sherry Newquist; District 4, Steve Balich, James M. Richmond; District 5, Annette Parker, Sherry Williams; District 6, Janet Diaz, Denise Winfrey; District 7, Natalie Coleman, Vince Logan, District 8, Mica Freeman, Mark V. Revis; District 9, Rachel M. Mitchell, Destinee Ortiz; District 10, Julie Berkowicz, Meta Mueller; District 11, Elnalyn Costa, Jacqueline Traynere.
II. PLEASE STAND FOR THE POSTING/PRESENTATION OF COLORS BY WILL COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT COLOR GUARD
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Member Mueller led the Pledge of Allegiance.
IV. INVOCATION
Member Mueller asked for a moment of silence.
V. REMAIN STANDING FOR RETIRING OF COLORS
VI. OATH OF OFFICE ADMINISTERED TO COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS BY COUNTY CLERK LAUREN STALEY FERRY
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated at this time I invite County Clerk, Lauren Staley Ferry to administer the oath of office to the elected members of the County Board.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we will recess until 10:30 a.m. for the Reorganization Meeting.
VII. CALL TO ORDER
Executive Bertino-Tarrant called the meeting to order at 10:45 a.m.
Media present: Nick Reiher, Farmers Weekly, Michelle Mullins, Daily Southtown
Elected officials present: County Executive, Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant; County Clerk, Lauren Staley Ferry; Auditor, Duffy Blackburn; Treasurer, Tim Brophy; DuPage Township Supervisor, Gary Marschke, Joliet Township Clerk, Alicia Morales; State Senator, Rachel Ventura, DuPage Township Trustee, Terri Ransom
VIII. ROLL CALL
| Attendee Nmae | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Katie Deane-Schlottman | District 1 (R - Joliet) | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | District 1 (D - Wilmington) | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Chair, District 2 (R - Monee) | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | District 2 (R - New Lenox) | Present | |
| Daniel J. Butler | District 3 (R - Frankfort) | Present | |
| Sherry Newquist | District 3 (D - Steger) | Present | |
| Steve Balich | District 4 (R - Homer Glen) | Present | |
| Jim Richmond | District 4 (R - Mokena) | Present | |
| Annette Parker | District 5 (R - Crest Hill) | Present | |
| Sherry Williams | District 5 (D - Crest Hill) | Present | |
| Janet Diaz | District 6 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | District 6 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | District 7 (D - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Vince Logan | District 7 (R - Joliet) | Present | |
| Mica Freeman | District 8 (D - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Mark Revis | District 8 (R - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Raquel M. Mitchell | District 9 (R - Bolingbrook) | Present | |
| Destinee Ortiz | District 9 (D - Romeoville) | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | District 10 (R - Naperville) | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | District 10 - (D - Aurora) | Present | |
| Elnalyn Costa | District 11 (D - Bolingbrook) | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | District 11 (D - Bolingbrook) | Present |
X. MOTION TO PLACE ON FILE THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 11 (D - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Mica Freeman, District 8 (D - Plainfield) AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Winfrey, Coleman, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowicz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere |
XI. NEW BUSINESS
22-458 - Motion to Remove Section 1.05-B, number 3
Member Traynere stated I would like to make a motion that we accept the Rules as presented for the next County Board cycle.
Member Ogalla stated page seven, which is Section 1.05-B, number 3, I would like to make a motion to remove that rule.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Winfrey, Coleman, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowicz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere |
Member Ogalla stated on top of page eight, Section 1.05-B number 4, I would like to make a motion to remove that rule.
| RESULT: APPROVED [18 TO 4]
AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Pretzel, Newquist, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Williams, Winfrey, Coleman, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Mueller, Costa, Traynere NAYS: Butler, Diaz, Ortiz, Berkowicz |
Member Ogalla stated on page 11, under Section II, Committees of the Will County Board, I would like to put Legislative back in, but have it just be Legislative; a standing committee on its own.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Winfrey, Coleman, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowicz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere |
Member Ogalla stated on page 21, Section 3.01, under Order of Business, number three, I would like to keep “invocation”. I think that is something that grounds us, that brings us back to where we need to be, that sets us to remember where we need to be and what we need to do as a Board, to act in a bipartisan way to represent all the constituents of Will County. I would like to see that remain. I make the motion to keep it.
| RESULT: APPROVED [14 TO 8]
AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Berkowicz, Mueller NAYS: Newquist, Williams, Diaz, Winfrey, Coleman, Ortiz, Costa, Traynere |
22-458 - Motion to Allow Virtual Meetings for Business of the Public Body, Section 3.14
Member Ogalla stated on page 28, Section 3.14, Virtual Meetings, I would like a roll call vote as to whether we keep the virtual meetings in or not. I make a motion to remove Virtual Meetings.
Member Mueller stated I would like us to keep point B, if a county board member can not attend in person due to county business. Those two lines and then strike the rest of the paragraph under 5 ILCS 120/7. I make a motion for that.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated there has been a second motion to allow virtual meetings for those who are removed for County Board business.
Member Berkowicz stated I do not support that. If a person cannot attend due to county business, that’s too broad. We were all elected to represent our residents and we are aware of that obligation, so we should be here in person.
Member VanDuyne stated I believe where this subject came up was the fact that we do have a member that is president of the NACo Association. Sometimes that member is required to be out of town. As an elected official, we did have bipartisanship at the time that we wanted her to be elected a couple of years ago. I think it’s only fair to allow her to participate, him or her if they’re gone for county business. All the other stuff can be removed.
Member Traynere stated this Board supported her election to NACo. In fact, the other side of the aisle nominated her in a resolution to support her in her role trying to be the NACo second vice-president, then first vice-president, and then president. We took a vote to support her, both sides of the aisle, it was unanimous. We should support her and that means supporting her when she needs to leave business, and not penalizing her by not letting her vote.
Member Balich stated I don’t look at not supporting that type of thing as a negative thing. We all know what’s involved when you run for this thing. If you can’t be here, all past boards, if you weren’t here you weren’t allowed to have a vote. There was a time when one of our members wasn’t even allowed to speak at a committee because it was virtual, and she wasn’t there. Everybody knew ahead of time what this was and now you guys are trying to say because you have a member that might not be here all of the time that you want special provisions for that member. I helped Member Winfrey get elected to NACo. I went out and campaigned for her at NACo, harder than a lot of other people on the Democrat side because I thought it was important to have somebody from the county at NACo. But at the same time, I’m not willing to have anybody be able to vote unless they’re here. That’s what you agreed to when you signed up to do this and now we’re going to make special provisions? It’s totally not fair. We’re supposed to have things equal because we’re a 50-50 Board. We have to start out being a 50-50 Board. Not a “We’ll make a special excuse for X person.” You say county business? I’m a township supervisor, and everything I do at the township has to do with the county. Now I can not come to meetings and go virtual. Is that how it goes? There are other people here that have business that pertains to the county, and they’ll demand to go virtual. So, anybody, if they have a good enough excuse, can not be here? So it will be like during COVID-19 when nobody was here? The answer is no, so we have to say no. I’m voting no to this.
Member Mitchell stated I just want to add that I think it’s unconstitutional in a way to create one rule for one person. I love it that we have a member of our Board at NACo, I think that’s wonderful. But, if you can’t make it, then you just can’t make it.
Member Freeman stated over the last two years I have seen that we were virtual. I have also seen that when members of the Board are going to be gone for conferences, we have to rework our meetings around that. So, we have already made concessions for when Board members are gone. When we came back and we were in person, it was made very clear that we had to be present to vote and that is why someone wasn’t allowed to vote, because that was the rule. If it’s a County Board absence, I see no problem with allowing this, especially since we supported the role for NACo. I think it makes sense that we support her and make it impossible for her to do both.
Member Mueller stated I would be willing to amend it to say, “Cannot attend due to business of the public body.” That’s what the law says. I appreciate folks questioning that, but this is based on Illinois state law.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we have a motion to change county business to public body.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated there are a couple of questions, so I am going to try to cover all of them. As far as the motion that’s on the floor, there was a motion to approve the section (inaudible). Then, there was a motion to remove that, and then there was a motion to amend the removal so that the portion that remained is only that someone could participate remotely if they are participating in business of the public body. That language is language which is under…all of these categories include language from the Open Meetings Act. The Open Meetings Act specifically allows public bodies to participate remotely if they adopt rules. So, that’s what we’re talking about…are you going to adopt rules to allow participation remotely? If rules are adopted, then the person who wants to participate remotely must notify the public body, or the designated person, I think it says secretary, that they will be participating remotely and the public body must vote at it’s meeting to allow them to participate. All of those things need to happen.
Member Berkowicz stated my initial comment was that this is too broad. County business is too broad.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated they are not using the terminology county business, they are using the terminology business of the public body, which is the verbiage that’s in the state statute.
Member Berkowicz stated and what does that mean? We have several people who are in township government.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated I don’t know that township business is business of the public body unless there’s a matter involving the township on the agenda. You would still have to vote at the meeting itself to allow that person to participate.
Member Mitchell stated I am looking at NACo as an association of County Board folk, but not necessarily doing the business of the taxpayer. It is essential for our purposes. I’m just saying is NACo really something that pertains specifically to county business performing the business of the public body? Is that really what NACo is? I just want to clarify that.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated I think that’s a good question. I don’t think there’s any definition in the statute as to what business of the public body is. Generally, it would be business that would be enshrined in the statutes and the ordinances as to what the role’s of the county are. I will say that this County Board has paid for the dues for NACo, and they did vote by resolution to support the membership and the office that Member Winfrey ran for.
Member Butler stated when we talk about the public body, we’re talking about this Board specifically?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated yes. Business of the County Board.
Member Traynere stated I would just say the business of the public body is the County Board. Maybe we need it to specifically say that for NACo if need be. We have invested taxpayer dollars in this role that she plays. We lobby on the things that NACo does. That’s definitely taxpayer interest. We should be supporting this.
Member Berkowicz stated the word bipartisan came up and the fact that Member Winfrey as a NACo president, she is representing us. Let’s take the NACo event happening right here in Will County. I found out from the NACo newsletter what was happening in Will County. I found out that there was an event at Lion Electric and a couple other events, but there was no communication on a County Board level. I never got anything in my inbox, I had no idea any of these things were happening. I don’t know if anyone else received the emails and the invitations, but as a taxpayer, a resident, and an elected official, there was no participation in any of these NACo events, and maybe there’s a couple coming up, I have no idea.
This is supposed to be representing us and so where’s the representation? I will not support this is any way.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated can you please read the motion, Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated my understanding of the motion is to remove the various reasons for participating remotely with the exception of allowing a member to participate remotely if they are engaged in business of the public body.
| RESULT: APPROVED [12 TO 9]
AYES: VanDuyne, Ogalla, Newquist, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Freeman, Ortiz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere NAYS: Deane-Schlottman, Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Logan, Revis, Mitchell, Berkowicz LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
22-458 - Motion to Change Speaker to Chair
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated there is just one other suggestion that I have and I think some of you are familiar with this but many of you are not. The Illinois Supreme Court handed down a decision in the Kloeppel vs. Champaign County Board case. The reason I bring that up is because the Supreme Court found that County Boards do in fact have a Chair of the County Board. So, based upon that Illinois Supreme Court decision, I would recommend that you strike the term “Speaker” and moving forward, you use only the word “Chair” for the entire rules.
Member Traynere stated I understand the Supreme Court ruling. Last year the way we accommodated it was to vote in a County Board Chair, which happens to be the Speaker. I’m not sure why we’re changing it now. I honestly don’t remember the argument or why we switched it to Speaker in the first place, because I don’t believe it was Speaker before I joined this Board 14 years ago. Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe maybe you remember the logic back then?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated you are aware, when the County Executive form of government was formed, there were a lot of questions, and there could have been better clarification within the statutory scheme. At some point around 2004 or 2005 there was some controversy as to what the role of Chair was. There was a situation where the Chairman of the County Board was receiving phones calls and correspondence that was intended for the County Executive. Most places, throughout the state, are not aware that Will County…Will County at the time was the only county at the time to have an executive form of government. The only other one right now is Champaign County. There was a lot of confusion, and the correspondence was going to the Chairman of the County Board when it should have gone to the County Executive. There was not an appetite in Will County at that point to litigate it, so what was done instead was the County Board and the County Executive and the State’s Attorney got together and they chose outside counsel who issued a written opinion and they agreed to file that written opinion. That is what we have done from that time forward. That being said, we now have an Illinois Supreme Court decision that there is a Chairman. To fill in the need for some leadership on County Board, we had the Speaker position, which is not provided for in statute either, quite frankly. So, there is no provision for a Speaker. There is a section that talks about the Chairman and the Illinois Supreme Court says that is applicable to the County Executive form of government. Will County is bound to follow that Illinois Supreme Court decision at this time.
Member Traynere stated my concern is that we end up with the same problem that we had before.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated we may well, and that issue was brought up during litigation and the trial court judge who initially ruled to uphold the type of government that Will County has followed, even he said he didn’t see any problem using the term Chair. That’s where we’re at right now.
Member Traynere stated I just prefer the solution that we found last year and continue with the title of Speaker and also elect that same person to be the County Board Chair but use the title of Speaker.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated there is no provision in state statute for a Speaker at this point.
Member Traynere stated did the Illinois Supreme Court say we had to strike the term of Speaker?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated no that was not litigated.
Member Traynere stated that’s what I’m saying, and I doubt there’s going to be any litigation.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated I am giving you the advice based on a case called Dillon, which is Dillon’s rule, which is county (inaudible) authority which state legislature gives them. There is no authority in state statute for the term Speaker. My recommendation is what it is and that’s why I have given it.
Member Freeman stated we have rules on page four, Section 1.03, C, where it states that the county chair under the County Executive form of government, the County Board speaker shall simultaneously hold the title of County Board Chair. You are suggesting that we strike all of that and just say County Chair?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated right. All references to Speaker would be Chair. I don’t know if our state legislature will enact new legislation. If it does, then we would have to respond at that time. That’s purely speculative.
Member Freeman stated so if we did that then we would have to change all of the Speaker verbiage to Chair?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated this motion would cover every reference in the rules where it talks about Speaker the title would be Chair.
Member Butler stated so Champaign County has the same Executive style as we do?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated correct.
Member Costa stated can we just then remove 1.03, Section C altogether? Do we need a motion for that?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated as I referenced earlier, and I would consider this sort of a clerical error at this point; I had suggested that when you’re done making all the specific changes, you make one motion to clean up any clerical conflicts. That would be one of them and any grammatical conflicts. That could be done as part of that overall…or you could do another motion later, but at this point…or you could amend this motion to make all corrections so that there is a County Board Chair, and no reference to a Speaker and make the appropriate changes. We already have motions on the floor, so we either need to amend the motion or leave it and just vote as it is which is to change every reference from Speaker to Chair.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowicz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
22-458 - Motion to Correct Clerical Errors
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 11 (D - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 10 - (D - Aurora) AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowicz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
1. 22-458 Governance Rules and Procedures for the Will County Board in the County of Will, State of Illinois
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 11 (D - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Destinee Ortiz, District 9 (D - Romeoville) AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowicz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
XII. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF BOARD LEADERSHIP
Motion to Nominate Member Joe VanDuyne as Chair
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated at this time we are accepting nominations for Board Chair. I don’t know what you do in your political game, but there is a decorum in a County Board meeting. I told you before, we press our buttons, and I will call you in order. You do not stand up and shout. Member Traynere you have the floor.
Member Traynere stated I would like to nominate Member Joe VanDuyne to be County Board Chair of the Will County Board.
| RESULT: APPROVED [11 TO 10]
AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Freeman, Ortiz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere NAYS: Deane-Schlottman, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Logan, Revis, Mitchell, Berkowicz LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
Motion to Reconsider Previous Vote
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated we have always changed the vote before so if we choose not to allow her to change her vote during this meeting, no one during this entire term will be allowed to ever change their vote.
| RESULT: APPROVED [11 TO 10]
MOVER: Annette Parker, District 5 (R - Crest Hill) SECONDER: Frankie Pretzel, District 2 (R - New Lenox) AYES: Deane-Schlottman, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Logan, Revis, Mitchell, Berkowicz NAYS: VanDuyne, Newquist, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Freeman, Ortiz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
Motion to Recess for 10 Minutes
| RESULT: APPROVED [14 TO 7]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 1 (D - Wilmington) AYES: Deane-Schlottman, VanDuyne, Ogalla, Newquist, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Freeman, Revis, Ortiz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere NAYS: Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Logan, Mitchell, Berkowicz LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
Roll Call - Back from Recess
| RESULT: APPROVED [18 TO 0]
AYES: Deane-Schlottman, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Richmond, Parker, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Berkowicz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Winfrey AWAY: VanDuyne, Ogalla, Balich |
Motion to Nominate Member Joe VanDuyne as Chair
| RESULT: DEFEATED [10 TO 11]
AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Freeman, Ortiz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere NAYS: Deane-Schlottman, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Logan, Revis, Mitchell, Berkowicz LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
County Board Speaker
Motion to Nominate Member Judy Ogalla as Chair.
| RESULT: APPROVED [11 TO 10]
AYES: Deane-Schlottman, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Logan, Revis, Mitchell, Berkowicz NAYS: VanDuyne, Newquist, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Freeman, Ortiz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Winfrey |
Democratic Leader
Motion to Nominate Member Jacqueline Traynere as Democratic Leader.
| RESULT: APPROVED [10 TO 0]
AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Freeman, Ortiz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Winfrey NOT VOTING: Deane-Schlottman, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Logan, Revis, Mitchell, Berkowicz |
Republican Leader
Motion to Nominate Steve Balich as Republican Leader.
| RESULT: APPROVED [11 TO 0]
AYES: Deane-Schlottman, Ogalla, Pretzel, Butler, Balich, Richmond, Parker, Logan, Revis, Mitchell, Berkowicz LEFT MEETING: Winfrey NOT VOTING: VanDuyne, Newquist, Williams, Diaz, Coleman, Freeman, Ortiz, Mueller, Costa, Traynere |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4448&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up