12-11-2007 City Council Meeting

[scoon]

Keep an eye out for the agenda today.  If things went as planned, there should be bomb in it.

[scoon]

Item J-3.  ICMC Model Professional Administrator.

[OakParkSpartan]

The analysis of Phelan's ordinance is also interesting.  I hope the veto stands.

[OakParkSpartan]

Also the OC is proposing to use the "New Berwyn Banner" to distribute the mandated water testing results.  So use this paper which masquerade's as an official publication of the City of Berwyn to distribute required information to the residents.  All in the name of "saving money".

BTW, this tabloid is owned by the mayor.

Just crazy.

[OakParkSpartan]

Glad to see we are moving into some semblance of professional management.  I did get a kick out of the packet where they did not bother to put in the sections about how to hire an administrator.

I wish we could have had an open search.

[Count DMC]

What does it matter if there was an open search you would not have been involved anyway. This was the Fat Man and Erickson's baby all along wit hno input from the citizenry. How can any of you still have anything to do with this charade of local government when this stuff still keeps happening? I can't wait til someone pipes up about Frank or Shaughnessy without mentioning this piece of garbage that is in office now.

[Bear]

#8 and OC as a team?...Truly a meeting of the minds.

[Ted]

  In reading through the packet for the Tuesday meeting, one thing that surprised me is that Berwyn has a veto override law that is different than the state's law.

  The state's law is that a veto may be overridden by 2/3 of the members currently on the city council, which would be 5 out of 7 votes to override a veto.

  However, according to a memo by the law firm of Ancel/Glink in the packet, Berwyn's law is 2/3 of all the seats on the city council.  Since Berwyn has 8 seats on the city council, a veto override under Berwyn law would require 6 votes, not 5 votes.

The Ancel/Glink memo then went on to say that, while it thinks 6 out of 7 votes are needed under Berwyn law to override a veto, that that law is unconstitutional because it constitutes a change in the form of government.

  So, what happens Tuesday night if 5 out of 7 city council members vote to override the veto on the "alderman lawsuit indemnity" law and the mayor rules that under Berwyn law, 6 votes are required to override a veto?

  Even the city council's law firm achknowedges that 6 votes are required to override a veto if the law is consittutional.

  I also thought the analysis of the differences between the proposed law on public official indemnity against a law suit and the state law on public official indemnity against law suits was interesting.

  The proposed Berwyn law ties the hands of the city to only one option while the state law gives a municipality several options.  It seems like the main difference is that, under the proposed Berwyn law, the city MUST defend a public official in a law suit while under the state law, the city MAY defend a public official in a law suit (as well as giving the municipality other options).

  It should be interesting to see what happens after the veto override is voted on,  Will this go to court to decide whether a veto override requires 5 votes or 6 votes?

  Ted

[OakParkSpartan]

The Phelan ordinance is also interesting because it covers punitive damages, which apparently is rather unusual.

The other unusual thing is that no one is really sure WHO wrote this ordinance, as it did not originate from the city nor one of the law firms retained by the city, nor one of the attorney's on city council. 

[Ted]

An update on the veto at the city council meeting:

http://www.chicagosuburbannews.com/berwyn/homepage/x1091757436

Mayor's veto overridden with five votes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Cari Brokamp
cbrokamp@mysuburbanlife.com
Berwyn Life
Thu Dec 13, 2007, 10:31 AM CST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Berwyn, IL -
Any legal fees incurred by aldermen as a result of their work as city officials will now be covered by the city, after the Berwyn City Council overturned a mayoral veto this week shrouded in legal discrepancies.

The number of votes needed to overturn the veto has been a matter of contention in recent weeks.

The ordinance was approved in mid-November by a 5-to-2 vote, which some aldermen said made a veto a moot point since a two-thirds majority is needed to override a veto.

However, Mayor Michael O'Connor and city attorney Bruce Bonebrake said a 6-2 vote is needed to override a veto, a count impossible to obtain because of the 5th Ward aldermanic vacancy. The seat has been vacant for nearly nine months after the death of Alderman Ben Brocato.

O'Connor said the ordinance repeated provisions already established in the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.

While state law dictates to override a mayoral veto, "two-thirds of all aldermen then holding office" must vote against the measure, Berwyn law outlines that "two-thirds of all the members elected to council" must do so.

Independent law firm Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, which the City Council asked to review the matter, said Berwyn's law does not supersede state law.

"The code increases the majority of votes required to override a veto when there is a vacancy on the council and so has the effect of reducing the power of the City Council relative to the mayor," according to the opinion. "(The code) constitutes a change in the form of government in Berwyn, without approval by referendum."

That means five of seven aldermen are needed to override a veto.

The City Council had just that many votes Tuesday evening. Third Ward Alderman Mark Weiner voted against the override, and 2nd Ward Alderman Jim Ramos was absent from the meeting.

City legal counsel Richard Bruen told aldermen Tuesday in a memo that he believes there are several problems in the ordinance, which justifies the veto.

"As the proposed ordinance is drafted, it takes away the city's statutory discrimination to indemnify, potentially creates conflicts involving the representation of city officials and requires indemnity in situations which do not serve a public purpose, as is required by the Illinois Supreme Court," Bruen said.

[Bonster]

Remember this when you vote, next election.

[Terri]

Remember this when you vote, next election.

Yep!
Why is the author of the ordinance a secret? 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-w_briefs_13_working4dec13,0,50918.story

O'Connor also told aldermen that the ordinance may be illegal because he doesn't know who drafted it. "My fear is that someone who is not a certified attorney wrote this," said O'Connor to the board. "If Alderman Phelan wrote it, he is certainly not an attorney."

Phelan would not tell the mayor who wrote it.

[Bonster]

Ask Bobby!


(you can, this Thursday, at the DCoB Christmas Party!)

[apatriot]

why would I want to pay for Phelan's legal defense?  why would you?

[truman40]

What I don't understand is how Phelan can send out a flier/newsletter over the summer condemning patronage and the mishandling of city business, critizing the Mayor on all sorts of thing and yet vote or worse yet draft an ordinance like this. Once again a politician saying one thing and doing another. Maybe they think that we citizens have short term memory, I say we have a no more term(s) memory.
I am happy that one Alderman had the stones to stand up and say this is not right. Too bad he is not running again, I think we need more like Weiner. And by the way where was my Rep #2??

[OakParkSpartan]

Ramos was sick.

[truman40]

Ramos was sick.

Thanks Brian, not that it would have made much of a difference but its good to know where your Alderman stands on issues.
I also may have gotten Phelan confused with Erickson when I mentioned about sending out the newsletter/fliers. If I did my apologize.

[Bonster]

What I don't understand is how Phelan can send out a flier/newsletter over the summer condemning patronage and the mishandling of city business, critizing the Mayor on all sorts of thing and yet vote or worse yet draft an ordinance like this.

Maybe the DCoB members/followers can explain it.
Their guy supported it without a peep.
Future coverage?

[Bonster]

That attitude is much too prevalent around Berwyn... and from the way things have shaken out from 2005 and look to be shaping up for 2009, that attitude will thrive for many years to come.  Despite being ineffective in doing so towards the end, P-Panther was right about a number of things.  --  I'll take a person at their word until actions start to speak louder.