Only a few short weeks ago, Mayor Howard Frimark and his Alderpuppets – Jim Allegretti (4th), Don Bach (3rd), Tom Carey (6th), Rich DiPietro (2nd) and Robert Ryan (5th) – expressed their condemnation of Ald. Dave Schmidt (1st) for daring to make public certain information about the hiring of attorneys to investigate/audit the Park Ridge Police Department, and about the City’s attempt to purchase 720 Garden for a new police station.

Frimark solicited support for that condemnation statement from the Alderpuppets and Ald. Frank Wsol (7th) – while keeping it secret from Schmidt – and then read it during the “Mayor’s Report” portion of the Council meeting, thereby preventing any pre-meeting publication and any citizen comment. That statement falsely claimed that Schmidt’s disclosures had compromised the acquisition of the 720 Garden property as well as the privacy of certain police officers. 

Not surprisingly, that statement – although clearly intended by Frimark as an official act of the Council – had no legal force and effect, a fact of which Frimark apparently was informed in advance of the meeting by City Attorney “Buzz” Hill. Consequently, Frimark’s subsequent reading of it was nothing more than a naked political ploy, a gratuitous shot at Schmidt for shining a light on backroom dealings concerning matters which deserved public scrutiny.

This past Monday night (March 17), however, Schmidt presented his defense to Frimark’s charges.  For those of you who were unable to attend, we present the full text of Schmidt’s comments for your delectation:

 

ALDERMAN SCHMIDT’S RESPONSE
TO THE MAYOR’S “STATEMENT OF CONDEMNATION”

I.          PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS

On March 3, 2008, Mayor Frimark read a statement condemning my actions for disclosing to the public contents of two confidential memos authored by then-City Manager, Tim Schuenke, dealing with the Park Ridge City Council’s closed session discussion of issues related to a police station and an investigation of the City’s Police Department.  The condemnation was joined by Aldermen DiPetro, Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, and Carey.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, to “condemn” an individual means to “[t]o find or adjudge guilty.”  The civil law definition of the term “condemnation” is “[a] sentence or judgment . . . which declares that [the individual’s] claim or pretensions are unfounded.” Exhibit 1.pdf

In other words, the mayor and the Frimark Five adjudged me of guilt by secret ballot, without giving me any opportunity to respond and defend myself.

Since the mayor and the Frimark Five have deemed it appropriate to adjudge me of being guilty of wrongdoing, I will take this opportunity to present my defense and then let the Court of Public Opinion decide who is guilty.

II.         I CANNOT BE CONDEMNED FOR TAKING ACTION WHICH WAS LEGAL

First, and most importantly, I received an e-mail from Mr. Schuenke sent shortly after my disclosure of his memos confirming that he had no knowledge of any statute, ordinance or rule that prohibited the disclosure of closed session materials and discussions. Exhibit 2.pdf  I also received an e-mail from the City Attorney confirming that my actions were legal.Exhibit 3.pdf  Therefore, the mayor and the Frimark Five took the absurd action of condemning me for doing something which the City Manager and City Attorney conceded was perfectly legal.

I am not alone in finding such an act to be absurd.  In fact, the Illinois Attorney General has stated in an official opinion letter that “the possibility of imposing sanctions against a member of a public body for disclosing what has occurred at a closed meeting would only serve as an obstacle to the effective enforcement of the Act, and a shield behind which opponents of open government could hide.  Such an absurd construction of the law, which would render ineffective the public policy of this State favoring openness in government, must be avoided.” Exhibit 4.pdf (emphasis added).

To summarize, the mayor ran around behind-the-scenes and consulted privately with individual aldermen who gave their consent to what amounted to an adjudication of guilt against me without giving me any notice of the charges to be brought against me, without giving me any chance to respond and for doing something which the City Manager and City Attorney said was legal and which the Attorney General says is protected conduct.  Now, that is truly absurd.

III.        THE MAYOR’S “STATEMENT” WAS AN ILLEGAL RESOLUTION

Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “resolution” as “[a] formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote.” Exhibit 5.pdf

According to the City Attorney, the mayor asked him to draft a resolution, which he said reflected the will of the majority of the aldermen. Exhibit 6.pdf  The document that the mayor circulated to the aldermen and sought their support for was labeled as a “resolution.” Exhibit 7.pdf

At some time after the mayor circulated the resolution but before the City Council meeting, the mayor was advised that a resolution would require open discussion and an open vote.  To circumvent that requirement, the mayor had the audacity to simply change the heading of the document to “STATEMENT” and remove some verbiage which clearly identified the document as a resolution. Exhibit 8.pdf  However, Alderman DiPetro wrote to me, “A majority of the Council enacted a Statement condemning the release of Confidential Closed Session matters.” (emphasis added).  That is the definition of a resolution. Exhibit 9.pdf

I hereby condemn the mayor and the aldermen who joined him in adopting such a resolution in secret, without any due process and in violation of the law.

IV.        MY ACTIONS IN RELEASING CLOSED SESSION INFORMATION WERE PROPER AND IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS

Finally, let’s examine the substance of the meaningless condemnation/resolution itself.  I was accused of compromising the City’s position on the purchase of real estate for a police station without any evidence supporting the accusation.  In fact, before the mayor delivered his statement at the City Council meeting, he knew, and had told others, that the negotiations with the potential seller were still very much alive.  Moreover, I make no apology for disclosing to the public the fact that the City was attempting to purchase property for a police station before having public discussions as to whether we should put a police station there or anywhere and, if so, how we were going to pay for it.

The second transgression I was accused of was compromising the integrity of police officers and the police department in general.  However, not a single active police officer was named in Mr. Schuenke’s memo. (See the memo attached as Exhibit 10.pdf.)  The mayor simply made it up.  Moreover, I again reiterate that I have no qualms at all about my disclosure to the public.  The citizens had every right to know about the Council’s discussions concerning the scope of the police department investigation.

So, in short, the mayor ignored the Open Meetings Act, circumvented proper procedure for a resolution and fabricated grounds for a condemnation, and the Five joined in without discussion.  Why?  The answer seems pretty clear.  I have stood up to the agenda of the mayor and the Five which has rewarded the mayor’s political contributors at the expense of the residents and the taxpayers.  I will let the residents decide who is right and who is guilty.

The defense rests.

*                       *                       *

Well said, Alderman.