Meeting starts at 7:30 p.m.
Consent Agenda:
1.
Approval of meeting minutes
2.
Payment of bills
3.
Approval of Committee and Department Reports
A.
Finance and Administration ‑
B.
Public Works
& Water ‑
C.
Building, Zoning & Ordinance —
D.
Police & Public Safety ‑
E.
Economic Development ‑
F.
Parks, Recreation & Education —
Agenda Items:
Approval
of ordinance amending section 3-2-4E of the village code increasing the
number of B liquor licenses from six to seven.- Approval of Carnival contract.
Old Business New Business
Items from: The
Clerk:
Trustees:
Attorney
Department Heads
Mayor's Report:
Public Comment:
Trustees:
Attorney
Department Heads
Mayor's Report:
Public Comment:
Executive Session:
· Collective Bargaining Matters ( Section 2(c)(2) of
Open Meetings Act
· Appointment, Employment, Compensation, Discipline,
Performance, or Dismissal of Specific Employees (Section 2(c)(1) of Open
Meetings Act
Action Following Executives Session:
1. Possible approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement
Can someone please tell me what an Intergovernmental Agreement is?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't things be explained in plain English?
Herrmann is always attempting to hide her "true" agenda by mincing words. My guess is that it's regards to the most controversial issue in town------ THE DISPATCHER'S ROAD TO UNEMPLOYMENT!
"Dismissal of Specific Employees"?
Please join together for the "dismissal" of Herrmann in April.
ReplyDeleteIn the Daily Herald:
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130109/news/701099688/
>>>> "The Island Lake village board will meet at 7:30 p.m. Thursday at village hall, 3720 Greenleaf Ave., to discuss awarding a liquor license to a proposed new business in town and other issues. The board also will go into closed session to discuss employee union matters and personnel issues."
LOL! "... and other issues."
""The board also will go into closed session to discuss employee union matters and personnel issues.""
Gee - sounds like another boring, rather ORDINARY" Meeting, now doesn't it?
On the other hand, what are those "other issues" you might ask?
Well gee, and OMG! This is likely to be the Meeting where they'll be firing all of the Island Lake Police Department Dispatch employees, and contracting out those responsibilities to complete strangers in some other distant town.
Yeah, that's really boring and everything. Adding a new liquor licensee is so much more important to mention over getting rid of our hometown PD Dispatch!
WOW! Great faxed press release, Debbie and Connie!
WOW! Great in-depth reportage, Daily Herald!
Not!
Do you get the feeling that they hope no one shows up, but is surprised and shocked later?
ReplyDeleteTHIS is "PROGRESS"?
Really?
I wish, just for once, it was FOR THE PEOPLE.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy has this Intergovernmental Agreement not been discussed in an open board meeting previous to this meeting?
ReplyDeleteP.O.R. That's becuase the Mayor is not FOR THE PEOPLE. She is and always will be for her own "progress"!
Delete
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130110/news/701109575/comments/
Island Lakers be careful what you wish for........
Current Police Department employment stats for Island lake are not excessive. They are average, or one could say they are pretty much on target.
FBI stats for the Midwest, towns of 10,000 or less:
2.8 Officers per 1,000 in population
3.4 total PD employees per 1,000 in population
Backing out Dispatchers is much more tricky. But if you do some searching, and for those small communities who retain their own dispatch departments, you'll find 5 or 6 dispatchers for towns of 6,000 or so, and as many as 7 or 8 dispatchers for towns of 10,000 or so.
ReplyDeleteHey "I Know" -
If we're concerned about the fiscal health of the Village, and if we can't afford the $360k per year for dispatch, why is it Mayor Herrmann thinks we can afford a $6M village hall we definitely can't afford?
Why build a new PD building, if no one's going to be there?
Further," I Know",
Nobody disregards that we have a Republic and not a Democracy.
Discussing the firing of employees SHOULD be in Executive Session.
But the discussion and announcement of whether or not that might be a possibility that is being considered by the Board should be at least announced in PUBLIC session.
THAT'S what's wrong here.
The Board has a MORAL responsibility to at least listen to comment and discussion from concerned residents, whether on the street or in the Boardroom.
This crowd sweeps everything into Executive Session, so all residents usually have is an ambiguous item of business posted 48 hours before the meeting - and sometimes that's the only warning some Trustees have either.
We're supposed to have active Committees which report proposals such as this out of Committee to the Committee of the Whole.
THAT, "I Know", also happens to be the standard operation of a Republic as well.
ReplyDeleteDid you know, "I know", that we're not going to save anything close to $360K? Do you know we'll have to pay someone else for the service?
To the furthest legal extent possible, all such business should be done in Committee, which is also a public venue.
Right now, we have no idea what options are being considered, what it means for future service to Village residents, nor how much the potentials savings may be, if any.
We should at least be aware of the discussion. But we're not - because this Village is not even being run like a Republic.
Because for the last 4 years under Herrmann, we have no Committees. When's the last time ANYTHING was voted out of Committee with a recommendation to the Committee of the Whole?
Because for the last 4 years under Herrmann, all previous Committee Business is now conducted in Executive Session EXCLUSIVELY. And that's legally incorrect AND morally wrong.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130110/news/701109575/comments/
ReplyDeleteWhinestomper Said:
>>>> "$356,000 a year? It would be crazy not to take a good look at this.
And I don't disagree, Whine; "not to take a good look at this", OK?
But do keep in mind, that the "budgeted" amount for dispatch is far less than that, but then add in IMRF, social security, health insurance, etc., etc., and you end up with the figure of $356k that John Little cites, of which I have no objection.
On the other hand, should you consider "$356,000 a year for Dispatch worth looking at? Why not look at the following departmental budgets that are also equally large or larger, which figures do NOT include a pro-rated accounting for IMRF, social security, health insurance, pensions, etc. for that "department"?
How about the Admin budget of $429Kper year, not even including un-totaled and pro-rated IMRF, social security, health insurance, etc. for that "department"? That's far larger than the Dispatch Budget?
Or how about the Civil Defense budget of $508k? Whatever the heck that includes and pays for?
Or how about the Police Department budget of $1,879M? Not even including un-totaled and pro-rated IMRF, social security, health insurance, etc. for that "department"? And why not farm much of that out to the Wauconda PD, and/or the Lake/McHenry County Sheriff while we're at it?
ReplyDeleteOr how about Public Works, a.k.a.,, "Streets and Bridges" at $654,641? Not even including un-totaled and pro-rated IMRF, social security, health insurance, etc. for that "department"? And why not contract out a whole bunch o' those responsibilities while we're at it, as well?
Or how about "Bonds & Interest" at $6.7M as budgeted? Add in another $6M for a new village hall and where if "purchased" by Herrmann and The Herd, we can't afford to even staff it? And does THAT make sense, either? Is that also one more budgetary line item that we "would be "crazy" not to look at", either? YOU decide, Whinestomper.
Finally? We have myriad "fertile fields" for savings - no doubt. Why are we focused on the PD? Isn't the PD the very most important service we're willing to provide the residents of Island Lake?