Absolute Transparency + Ethics

During my time on City Council, one of the major issues I’ve noticed is the inappropriate use of closed meetings. Along with the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) is collectively known as the “sunshine laws.” These two laws exist to ensure that governments are transparent. The OMA dictates that the default position for all meetings that include a majority of a quorum be open to the public and press (in McHenry’s case, that number is three). Exceptions that are allowed under the OMA are narrow but include topics that are of a sensitive nature that could put the City in a disadvantaged position. Examples include topics such as employee performance reviews, pending litigation or potential legal issues, and the buying or selling of property for public use.

The buying or selling of property for public use is the classification that is most abused.

On April 29, 2024, the Mayor, four members of City Council, and eight members of staff, met at City Hall to board a bus to tour multiple Shodeen properties (read more about that tour HERE). Despite the purpose of the tour being for elected officials and staff to view Shodeen developments rather than discuss the buying or selling of property for public use, this tour was a closed meeting. On the bus during this closed meeting that the public and press were prohibited from attending, was a representative of Shodeen who gave a presentation during the bus ride and a contracted bus driver with the chartered bus company. Not on the bus during this closed meeting that the public and press were prohibited from attending but a Shodeen representative and a contracted bus driver could attend, were myself and another member of City Council. After informing staff I would not be attending because it was a closed meeting, I received a message from the Mayor pressuring me to attend, and I responded with “prior commitments” because I had already stated my objections to staff and arguing ethics with some people is pointless.

City Council was told about this tour previously but, at that time, it was intended to be open to the public. For reference, on October 16th, 2021, a Special City Council Meeting was held for the purpose of elected officials and staff to tour a property development in Wheeling by the Lynmark Group, that, at the time, was proposing a development at the former wastewater treatment plant site. This tour was open to the public and press but, despite serving the same purpose, the Shodeen tour was not. This is a blatant abuse of closed meetings. This is also the Shodeen tour the Mayor weaponizes to manipulate the public into believing that myself and the other Council member who did not attend did not do our due diligence and had not educated ourselves about the Shodeen development.

For reference, the Mayor did not attend the City Council meeting on April 3rd, 2023 when Council approved the execution of the standstill agreement with Shodeen. Additionally, the Mayor did not attend or participate at City Council meetings on: March 4th, 2019; December 20th, 2021; October 3rd, 2022; March 6th, 2023; February 21st, 2024; May 20th, 2024; and January 21st, 2025. Per City Ordinance No. 21-9, individual members who cannot physically attend a meeting due to personal illness or disability, employment purposes or City business, or family or other emergency may attend via audio or video conference and be considered present and participate.

A private tour of public properties is never appropriate under the narrow guidelines of what can be discussed in a closed meeting. It is important to remember that the default is open and the City needs to demonstrate that what is being discussed is of a sensitive nature that could put the City in a disadvantaged position if a meeting is to be closed. When this tour occurred, the City and Shodeen were more than one year into a standstill agreement that allowed Shodeen exclusive Downtown development rights so it is not a believable justification that including the public and press would put the City in a disadvantaged position. The guidelines of the OMA exist to protect the public’s right to be informed about the decisions and deliberations of their government. The guidelines of the OMA do not exist to protect corporate developers from scrutiny from the public or press.

Per the OMA, the City is required to review closed meeting minutes “every six months, or as soon thereafter as is practical.” On December 2nd, 2024, City Council approved the opening of nine closed meetings that were related to the rejected Shodeen development, including the minutes for the April 29th tour. This means the closed meetings are now open and the minutes are now available for public inspection. However, these written minutes are extremely vague in terms of anything discussed and are also not readily available for viewing on the City’s Public Documents Portal. Additionally, the public is prohibited from listening to the audio recordings of the closed meeting so, despite now being considered an open meeting, there is still minimal transparency.

This is why it is so essential that closed meetings are not abused because these meetings are never fully opened if the written minutes are extremely vague in terms of actual conversations among elect officials, the written minutes are not readily available for viewing on the City’s Public Documents Portal, and the public is prohibited from listening to the audio recordings of the closed meeting.

This abuse of closed meetings will not happen under my administration.

In addition to the “sunshine laws,” Illinois has additional guidelines in place to ensure transparency. The Statement of Economic Interest is a mandatory annual filing that elected officials submit that disclose financial holdings. The purpose of this disclosure is so voters can identify any potential conflicts of interest in a Mayor’s agenda or a City Council member’s votes. For instance, if an elected official has ownership in multiple businesses, either full or partial, in a portion of the City that receives an inordinate amount of City resources, funding, and attention, this is an important disclosure and information that voters have a right to know.

The link to view the Statement of Economic Interest disclosures can be found HERE. The filing period to submit 2025 disclosures has not begun but previous filings can be viewed by changing the year above the “Filer Search” to previous years and then inputting the elected officials first and last name in the “Filer Search.”

2024 is the only year that I have a Statement of Economic Interest filed with the County Clerk’s office (first year Statement of Economic Interests are filed as candidates so not searchable).

The first disclosure is of any assets above $10,000. This includes any businesses owned or partially-owned and real estate holdings, excluding your home. These assets must be itemized even if you have a holding company that individual investments are held in. I do not own or partially-own any businesses, I do not own any real estate holdings besides my home, and I do not have a holding company so my disclosure is three itemized stocks that individually have a value above $10,000.

The second disclosure is of any source of income above $7,500, not including the elected official’s salary. My yearly salary on City Council is $4,200 so that would not reach the disclosure threshold even if required. I am retired so my disclosed sources of income are Social Security and a 401K.

The next five disclosures have to do with debts, previous government positions, relationships with lobbyists, gift disclosures, and, finally, whether a spouse or immediate family member is employed by an Illinois public utility. These are not applicable to me so “N/A” is entered.

“N/A” is only acceptable if there is nothing to disclose. While the Statement of Economic Interest requires filing, it does not require accuracy, meaning, an elected official can intentionally omit disclosure and there is no recourse because the County only acts as a filing cabinet. This is extremely unethical to do though because the public has the right to know if City dealings or developments or use of taxpayer funds could in any way financially benefit the elected official. If these assets including business or real estate holdings are not explicitly disclosed individually, it is fair if the public concludes there might be a reason for this.

This is why elected officials need to have high ethical standards and absolute transparency.