At tonight’s Peoria Park Board meeting, the settlement terms of the Alms/Partridge lawsuit were approved unanimously. Here’s the text of the joint press release:

JOINT PRESS RELEASE OF PARTIES

Karrie E. Alms, Sara A. Partridge, and the Pleasure Driveway and Park District of Peoria and its Trustees are announcing today the settlement of the lawsuit pending between them.

Mrs. Alms and Ms. Partridge filed suit against the Park District and its Trustees in May, 2006, alleging that the Park District violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act in holding closed meetings on March 8 and 22, 2006, to discuss leasing to District 150 a portion of Glen Oak Park which, along with adjoining private property along Prospect Road, would serve as a site for a new school to replace the existing Glen Oak School.

That lawsuit was subsequently amended to add a count asserting that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act when an audiotape of the March 8 closed session was mistakenly deleted by a Park District employee.

Trial was scheduled in the case for May 17-18, 2007.

During the past few weeks, the parties, with the assistance of Chief Judge Richard Grawey, have met on several occasions to discuss a potential settlement of the case. Both sides have concluded that settlement terms exist which are acceptable to each and which would end the further expenditure of public and personal funds. Additionally, with the Park District’s decision not to move forward with the School District’s request for property, a significant focus of the suit is no longer present.

The terms of settlement offer more than an end to spending public dollars. They provide for improved policies and training at the Park District. They further provide for the Park District to make a partial payment of the attorney’s fees incurred by Mrs. Alms and Ms. Partridge in this suit. The Park District had conceded that the mistaken deletion of the March 8 tape was not proper under the Act and the Open Meetings Act allows for a recovery of attorneys fees by private parties in such circumstances.

The terms of the settlement are the following:

1. All official Peoria Park District Board of Trustee meetings pertaining to the possible location of public school facilities partially or totally on Peoria Park District property shall be held in open session and otherwise in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
2. The Park District will contact the Illinois Attorney General’s office to schedule training in Open Meetings Act compliance; the training will be conducted at times and places as soon as is convenient and in open session.
3. The Park District will amend its official policy manual to reflect appropriate Open Meetings Act compliance procedures.
4. The terms of this settlement agreement do not constitute an admission by the Defendant Peoria Park District or its Trustees that the closed meetings of the Board of Trustees on March 8 and March 22, 2006, were in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The terms of settlement do not constitute a concession by the Plaintiffs that the closed meetings were held in compliance of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
5. The District shall pay to Plaintiffs $27,500, representing partial payment of their attorney fees and expenses.

Both sides are satisfied with the outcome and are pleased the suit is concluded.

File this one under, “You Can’t Fight City Hall.” It’s hard to wage a lawsuit against a public body that has an endless supply of public funds to expend and lots of legal tricks up their sleeve. The Park Board came out smelling like a rose in this settlement and it only cost them $27,500.

The question I have is, why did Alms and Partridge have to do what the state’s attorney should have been doing in the first place? The taxpayers pay the state’s attorney to prosecute cases like this; if he won’t prosecute, then who’s looking out for the taxpayers?

Neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge sued the Peoria Park District last May for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA) when they discussed a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session.

The OMA allows public bodies to meet in closed session only for narrowly-defined exceptions, one of which is the “setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body.” The argument is that since the Park Board was not setting a price for the property, but instead intended only to share the land, it did not fall under any exceptions and deliberations should have been held in public.

Fortunately, closed-session meetings have to be audiotaped, so in cases like this the judge can simply listen to the proceeding and determine whether or not the OMA was violated. Unfortunately, the Park Board secretary erased several closed-session tapes, including one pertinent to the lawsuit. That in itself was a violation of the OMA, and the judge declared it so. However, the board secretary was not prosecuted by the state’s attorney.

But the erased-tapes issue was an add-on to the original lawsuit. The main question is whether the Park District violated the OMA by discussing a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session. That case is still ongoing, but it could be settled out of court tonight.

At tonight’s Park Board meeting, one of the items on their agenda is “Discussion—Possible Approval of Negotiated Settlement re: Alms vs. Peoria Park District litigation.” I thought it was odd that this would be discussed in open session since pending litigation is approved by OMA to be discussed in closed session. According to Alms and Partridge’s attorney, the Park Board will discuss the proposed settlement in executive session, then bring it to the open session for approval, if appropriate. As to what the proposed settlement terms are, no one was willing to comment, of course.

Some may ask, why is this lawsuit still going on? Wasn’t it just an attempt to stop the school in the park plan, which was rejected anyway? Why is this still being pursued? And the answer is, this suit represents something much bigger and more important than just one’s feeling about the school in the park issue. It has to do with open government and the need to hold our elected officials accountable.

The public’s business should be done in public. That’s the basic principle. Now there are some very good reasons why a public body would need to meet out of the public eye for certain things, and Illinois law recognizes that fact. They call them “exceptions.” Exceptions to the rule — exceptions to the basic principle. They are to be defined narrowly and used judiciously. In fact, many lawsuits cause public outcry, especially if it concerns sex crimes. Learn more for sexual offenses and the way to protect your right.

If we let public bodies start stretching those exceptions, pretty soon things that should be done in public will be done behind closed doors, in secret, where no one is looking and no one can be held accountable. That’s not good for citizens and taxpayers. The Guide to the Open Meetings Act states that “public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.”

I’m disappointed that the state’s attorney chose not to pursue this apparent violation of the OMA by the Park District, and that it took private citizens putting up their own money to fight for open government.

Best wishes to Alms and Partridge in their efforts to get a favorable settlement tonight.

I erroneously stated yesterday, “Part of the remedy handed down [for the Park Board’s Open Meetings Act violation] by the state’s attorney’s office was that the [park] board have a policy/procedure on the proper creation, storage, and destruction of closed session recordings.” After rereading a copy of the state’s attorney’s letter to the Park Board, it turns out that’s not accurate.

What the letter actually stated was that the park board previously told the state’s attorney’s office that it already had a policy in place for destroying closed session tapes, and that was the basis upon which the state’s attorney’s office declined to take punitive action. So now the question is, if the park board already had a policy in place, why are they just now adopting a resolution?

On September 13, 2006, William W. P. Atkins of the State’s Attorney’s office wrote a letter to Tim Bertschy, who is representing the Park Board in the lawsuit over violations to the Open Meetings Act. The letter states that Atkins met with board president Tim Cassidy and park district attorney Jim Konsky to discuss the matter. In the letter, Atkins makes it clear that the Board cannot simply blame their secretary Joyce McLemore for destroying the tapes:

Ms. McLemore is not the only one to blame in this matter. The Park District failed to promulgate a policy regarding destruction of closed meeting verbatim records. Further, the Board failed to supervise the Secretary closely enough to discover the ongoing destruction of records until nearly three years of some of the recordings had been destroyed.

So the Board itself is culpable in the Open Meetings Act violation because, in part, they didn’t have a policy. So, why was no punitive action taken against the board? Read on (emphasis mine):

In this particular case, you have informed me that the Park District now has a policy only allowing destruction of verbatim recordings in compliance with the portion of the Open Meetings Act cited above. Further, the Secretary has been instructed concerning this policy to insure her obedience to the Board and the law….

Because you have reported these violations to the State’s Attorney’s Office and taken measures to prevent such violations from occurring again, no purpose would be served by any punitive action at this time.

That was September 2006. Now, in May 2007, eight months later, the board is adopting a policy that they told the State’s Attorney they already had. What kind of games are being played here? Did they already have the policy or not? If they didn’t, then they lied to the State’s Attorney in September. If they did, then why do they need to re-adopt the policy eight months later?

Between the school board and the park board, the principle of “open government” is getting a black eye.

On the agenda for the Peoria Park Board meeting is this little item under New Business:

7) RESOLUTION: Adopt Procedures for Audio Recordings—Closed Session Meetings

Here’s a copy of the resolution in PDF format. The procedure is just a reiteration of the Illinois Open Meetings Act’s requirements concerning the audio and/or video recording of closed session meetings.

The Park District is taking this action because they violated the Open Meetings Act when they unlawfully destroyed audio recordings of closed-session meetings, including one that is the subject of a lawsuit. Part of the remedy handed down by the state’s attorney’s office was that the board have a policy/procedure on the proper creation, storage, and destruction of closed session recordings.

Guess where this is. Yep, Glen Oak Park.

While we’re waiting to preserve some important, but man-made, objects in Glen Oak Park through historic-designation status, the Park District is uprooting acres of trees in the heart of the city to make way for the big zoo expansion. Why do I get the feeling we’re fighting the wrong battle here? What’s more precious: the Squirrel House, which is a nice addition to the park, or the trees, which are the park?

The Park Board’s mission is, “To enrich life in our community through stewardship of the environment and through provision of quality recreation and leisure opportunities.” I fail to see how the Park District’s actions are consistent with this mission statement. The operative word is “and.” It doesn’t say “stewardship of the environment” or “provision of quality…leisure opportunities.” One might justify expanding the park as a way of providing leisure opportunities, but how can they do it at the expense of the first part of their mission?

I know this train has already left the station, but the sad thing is that the community voted with their dollars that they weren’t excited about having this zoo (fundraising efforts were sluggish, to say the least). Instead of listening to that resounding vote of no-confidence, the park board decided to plug the funding gap with tax dollars and tear down the trees anyway.

I still stand by my statements in my previous post, but nevertheless, this is the reason people are cynical about the Park District. This is why they think the board won’t listen if they come to the board with their concerns. This is why we’re all skeptical of the Park Board’s commitment to their mission.

UPDATE: I should also mention that according to the Park District’s 1994 Master Plan, the Park Board’s “Fundamental Responsibilities” are:

1. To provide opportunities for wholesome recreational activities that relate to the needs and desires of all citizens.
2. To conserve our natural resources.
3. To be the guardian of a quality environment for our citizens and encourage the creation, restoration, and preservation of aesthetic values in our community.

Furthermore, one of the their strategic goals is: “Remain a leading force in the preservation of the historical, cultural, and natural environments of the community.”

So, again, how does turning a large portion of Glen Oak Park into an African Zoo exhibit mesh with their fundamental responsibilities and strategic goals?

Three Peoria Park Board trustees are running unopposed this election, but the president’s post is a contest between incumbent Tim Cassidy and current board member Robert Johnson. I had the opportunity to meet both men at the Uplands Residential Association’s candidates forum this past Thursday. They are both very friendly, personable, and passionate about the park district’s mission.

Johnson made headlines a few days ago for saying that the Junior League’s Children’s Museum plans would be scuttled if the Peoria City Council approved landmarking historical structures in Glen Oak Park. He later retracted that statement. He is critical of Cassidy for voting against a land-sharing agreement with Peoria Public Schools so they could build a school on the edge of Glen Oak Park. Even though the Letter of Intent the Park Board signed with the school board was non-binding, Johnson feels that the Park Board broke its word, leaving the school district on the hook for the properties it purchased. He believes the Park District is “land rich and facilities poor”; thus, he would like to see more facilities, preferably through partnering with other governmental bodies, such as the library board.

Cassidy wants to maintain the Park Board’s present course. He doesn’t want to reopen old wounds by revisiting the school-in-the-park issue; he thinks it’s important for the sake of the community for that issue to be final and off the table. And he points out that the park district’s tax rate has gone down under his leadership.

I have several concerns with Johnson. First, if he were elected, it’s likely that the school siting issue would return. That issue only lost by one vote, and Cassidy was that swing vote. If Johnson wins, he would have to appoint a replacement (subject to the board’s approval) for the seat he currently holds on the board. He will almost certainly appoint someone who is favorable toward siting a school adjacent to Glen Oak Park, setting the stage for a renewed battle. Secondly, Johnson’s favor for new facilities would be ill-timed, considering the debt the park district has accrued recently for the zoo expansion. And thirdly, he speaks disparagingly about the lawsuit that is pending against the park district over violations of the Open Meetings Act. I feel that that lawsuit is a serious issue that should not be treated lightly or with contempt.

We don’t need any more building programs in the near future, and the last thing our community needs is to pick at scabs like the Glen Oak School site controversy; that issue needs to be put to bed. Therefore, I’m endorsing Cassidy.