Long ago we learned a valuable lesson about government, especially local government: almost nothing good occurs in “closed session” – when local governmental bodies meet without the public or the press allowed to be present to watch, listen and learn;  and with no minutes published unless the governmental body expressly authorizes their publication.

Which is almost never.

Closed sessions violate the spirit of open government and, therefore, the circumstance in which they can occur – and the topics that can be discussed in them – are limited by the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”).  While a public body is permitted to go into closed session, closed sessions are never required.  Additionally, no formal action, such as the enactment of new laws or the passage of resolutions, can occur during the closed session: the public body must reconvene into open session to do those things.

But since most closed sessions seem to occur at the end of the “public” portion of meetings, by the time the closed sessions end and the officials emerge from the darkness and into the light, there often is no “public” or press hanging around to witness and address the formal action that gets voted on.

Not that many years ago most public officials – virtually ALL bureaucrats, and the vast majority of elected officials – operated from the premise that what was discussed in closed sessions was SECRET and could not even be disclosed or disussed outside of the closed session.  Obviously, shameless and spineless public officials who like nothing more than to run and hide from their constituents in closed session don’t want anybody revealing whatever tomfoolery they concocted while free from public scrutiny.

At the City Council level it took then-alderman, now Mayor Dave Schmidt to dispel that misguided belief (or wishful thinking) that closed session discussions and information are “secret.”  Schmidt took the unprecedented step of publicly blowing the whistle on then-mayor Howard Frimark’s closed session efforts to persuade the Council to buy the 720 Garden property as the future site of a new police station, even though the Council had not yet even decided on whether or not to build a new cop shop – and at a price a couple/few hundred thousand dollars more than the City’s own appraiser said it was worth.

Not surprisingly, Frimark and his alderpuppets were outraged by Schmidt’s disclosure.  Frimark not only denounced Schmidt but also proposed a Council resolution formally “condemning” Schmidt and his disclosures.  Because “condemnation” of a City alderman has no legal consequences, however, Frimark’s show-trial and 5-1 vote approving that condemnation resolution were merely exercises in futility – and may have even helped launch Schmidt’s subsequently successful bid to unseat Frimark.

Since Schmidt became mayor, closed sessions have become far fewer and farther in between.

But at Park Ridge-Niles School District 64, closed sessions seem to be the preferred way of doing business, as evidenced by the recent hiring process for the new superintendent.

We discussed some of the shortcomings of that process in our 12.27.13 and 01.08.14 posts, so we won’t recount those here.  But more recent – and arguably more egregious – abuses of closed session deserves a special dishonorable mention.

At a special meeting last Friday (01.24.14), the D-64 Board scurried into closed session almost immediately after convening so that members could discuss the compensation package they intended to offer the new superintendent, Laurie Heinz.  Not surprisingly, the motion for closed session was made by D-64’s own prince of darkness, John Heyde, whose adoration of closed sessions (and secrecy generally) might well be unparalleled in local government over the past decade or two, save for perhaps Frimark’s.

Heyde so relishes closed sessions and secrecy that not only did he advocate conducting teachers union contract negotiations in secret, but he actually built a legal requirement for closed-session negotiations into the contracts he negotiated.  That provision guarantees that the taxpayers don’t get to see or hear the exorbitant opening demands that the Park Ridge Education Association (“PREA”) is rumored to make whenever it opens contract negotiations, or see or hear all the ankle-grabbing concessions and outright appeasement by our elected officials who are supposed to be looking out for the taxpayers’ interests and the best interest of the District.

So we fully expected Heyde and his fellow travelers on the D-64 Board to want the same freedom from the prying eyes of the taxpayers and the press when it came to the Board’s formulation of the compensation package being offered to Heinz.  And Heyde, et al., did not disappoint last Friday evening.

But Board president Tony Borrelli threw a wrench into Heyde’s plans by suggesting that the discussions of the new superintendent’s contract offer be held in open session.

For the most fleeting of moments, Borrelli’s suggestion seemed to freeze Heyde and his closed-session allies like deer caught in a car’s headlights – before Heyde regained his balance and mumbled an explanation for why closed session was necessary:  the Board’s “strategizing for a contract negotiation” should not be done in open session because it would give the new superintendent the District’s negotiating game plan.

You can watch and listen to Heyde’s oratory – and the 6-1 vote (Borrelli dissenting) to go into closed session – by checking out the meeting video and fast-forwarding to the 1:30 mark.

What Heyde can’t seem to figure out – or won’t publicly admit – is that the Board is under no obligation to “negotiate” with Ms. Heinz.  The Board could have, and should have, publicly formulated all of the elements of the compensation package it was offering Heinz, and explained why that package is fair and reasonable to Heinz AND, more importantly, to D-64’s taxpayers.

Then, if Heinz disagreed with the fairness of that offer, she could say so – equally publicly – and make her counteroffer, also publicly.  That way, the whole process could have played out in full public view, so that the taxpayers could have judged for themselves whether the Board’s initial offer was fair, whether Heinz’s counter (if any) was reasonable, and whether the final deal was fiscally responsible.  More importantly, the taxpayers could have judged for themselves whether their Board was being wise or foolish, and whether Heinz was being reasonable or greedy.

But Heyde and his anti-transparency ilk fear that kind of scrutiny and accountability.  They want secrecy and plausible deniability at every turn.  As we noted in our 08.29.13 post, they wouldn’t even consider televising or videotaping meetings until a group of citizens showed up with a video camera and started doing their own taping.

Given that employee compensation, pensions and benefits make up the overwhelming majority of D-64’s ever increasing operating expenses – now over $70 million/year – the need for complete transparency in every aspect of the compensation process, including union contract negotiations, has become more crucial than ever before.  That’s one of the reasons some states (like Florida) have enacted “sunshine” laws that REQUIRE such negotiations to be held in open session.

Complete transparency becomes even more crucial when we keep on electing D-64 Board members who are little more than rubber-stamping stooges for the teachers union and its collaborating administrators – most of whom are former teachers who realize that every teacher pay increase almost always results in commensurate (or better) administrator pay increases.

But the D-64 Board is nothing if not consistent in its never-ending quest to keep the taxpayers in the dark.

Last night it held a special meeting to “Approve Compensation Package for Superintendent designate Dr. Laurie Heinz,” as can be seen from the agenda for that meeting.  Not only were there no details of her “Compensation Package” or contract in the agenda itself, but as late as 8:30 this morning – the day after the meeting to approve her contract – the District had still not posted that contract or its terms on its website as the “Exhibit A” referenced at Appendix 2 to the agenda.

Chalk that up as just another sick joke played on D-64 taxpayers, and another bucket of disrespect thrown on those same taxpayers, by the folks entrusted to look out for our interests and the interests of one of our community’s most valuable assets.  In other words, it’s still business as usual at D-64.

And the taxpayers can either like it or lump it.

To read or post comments, click on title.