Below is the text of an editorial published August 14, 2008, in The Doings newspaper that took La Grange officials to task for refusing to make public documents related to their discussions of whether to provide financial assistance to the La Grange Theatre. The documents had been requested under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act by La Grange Today publisher Thom Rae, who subsequently obtained the involvement of the Illinois Attorney General's office.
It's difficult to understand where La Grange village officials are coming from in their simultaneous denial of Freedom of Information requests and the specifics of closed-door meetings, while at the same time talking about how they run a transparent government. It's clear their words don't match their actions, and Attorney General Lisa Madigan's Office is to be applauded for investigating the board a second time.
The action began following a closed-door meeting April 21, when the Village Board excluded visitors from the chamber during a meeting with the owners of the La Grange Theatre. They cited an exception to the Illinois Open Meetings Act for possible property acquisition, though what they were considering was a partnership with the theater for financial assistance for some renovations. Theater owners John Rot and David Rizner have asked the village to assist in a $3.5 million renovation intended to restore the theater to a main attraction.
The Attorney General's Office investigated the matter, determining a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act may have occurred. The office determined that if officials talked about securities or investments with the theater owners, as village attorney Mark Burkland indicated, then a violation occurred.
But the vague minutes of the closed meeting released by the village don't offer such an indication. They can hardly be called minutes; they just say generally what was discussed with no information on the course of the conversation or even the main points. Likewise the village has refused to release documents that were referenced during the closed discussion.
Yet Village President Liz Asperger goes on about the closed meeting not being an exception to "our very strident policy of maintaining transparency," and how "there never has been a scenario where anything in La Grange is done in a back-room manner." Her response to the Attorney General's Office is that the village made a procedural error by not citing the proper exemption, meaning she still defends the secrecy in talks with the La Grange Theatre.
Likewise, Village Manager Bob Pilipiszyn said the village must correct "a couple of procedural errors" but maintains release of a verbatim recording of the closed session "may be disproportional to procedural errors that were brought to our attention."
The problem is nobody will know without the release of the recorded conversation because the minutes were so vague.
Even when the law allows a public body to meet in private, it does not require it. Board members have the option of meeting in open session to discuss items of public interest, especially when it is a public/private partnership that is not required board business. The village doesn't have to help the La Grange Theatre, and if there is a case to help such an important downtown business continue—which there is—it ought to be made in a public setting.
Thankfully the attorney general is not accepting the village's denials and continues to request information from the village. But it's sad residents have to rely on a statewide office to ensure the transparency in government La Grange officials claim they provide.