Will County committee to add separate harassment policy, delays final vote on county policies

The Will County Ordinance Review Committee voted June 10 to add a separate general harassment policy to the county code and postponed final approval of Chapter 39 (County Policies) to its next meeting so staff can draft and circulate language.

The committee approved a motion directing staff to draft a standalone harassment policy in addition to the statutory "sexual harassment" language the county already keeps in the code. Member Butler moved the change and the motion carried on voice vote. The committee then voted to continue Chapter 39 until the next meeting so members can review the revised text.

Why it matters: committee members said a separate harassment policy could make workplace protections clearer and capture broader conduct and protected groups than the county's existing statutory sexual-harassment language. Others warned that state law uses specific wording for certain certifications and that the county must retain a policy that meets those statutory requirements.

During debate, Phil (staff) said the county keeps a standalone sexual-harassment entry because "the reason we use that term is because the state mandated us to use that term." Members who supported a broader policy said a separate, plainly titled harassment policy would complement — not replace — the statutory language and could improve training and recordkeeping across departments.

The committee also discussed several other items bundled in Chapter 39: a senior-citizen homestead exemption reference (staff said the section would cite the controlling state statute and that American Publishing will append the final county resolution and number when it is passed), health-insurance benefits for retirees who later return to elected office (members agreed to insert the phrase "persons retired from the county subsequently elected or appointed to county office" to clarify eligibility), and a charitable-organization vetting policy. On the latter, members asked staff to put the underlying vetting language directly into the ordinance instead of merely citing a prior resolution (members referenced "resolution 13-98"). Member Freeman said, "I would really like the language in the ordinance, not just a resolution number." The committee instructed staff to bring back the full nuts-and-bolts wording for charitable vetting at the next meeting.

The committee's votes were procedural: it approved adding a separate harassment policy and then voted to postpone final adoption of Chapter 39 to the next meeting so the proposed additions and clarifications can be circulated and edited.

Looking ahead: staff will draft the harassment policy language and the charitable-vetting language proposed by members, insert the clarified retiree-insurance text, and circulate the updated Chapter 39 for review before the committee reconvenes next month.