Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Ethics And Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Will County members raise concerns about letters to Springfield that cited board support
Summary
Committee members questioned whether letters sent May 29'30 to state legislators used county letterhead and listed board members who said they had not approved or signed the correspondence, prompting discussion about caucus practices and the need for a rules review.
A dispute over letters sent to state legislators surfaced at the May 6 Will County Board Legislative Committee meeting after members said correspondence dated May 29 and May 30 urged state lawmakers to hold a particular bill and listed county board members as signers.
"The letters were sent out on May 29 and May 30 from members of this board urging our state legislators to hold s b 2 50," a committee member said during new-business discussion, identifying the dates and the two letters. The member said one letter was signed by both party leaders and another by a single board member and that both letters claimed a total of 12 county board members were in agreement.
Several committee members objected that the correspondence appeared to use the board's letterhead and included names and leadership roles, creating the impression of full-board endorsement. "It feels to me that it was sent out in a way that it was to put the weight of the board behind it," the speaker said. Other members said they had not seen the letter and that some people whose names appeared told them they had not agreed to be included.
County staff said they had not circulated the letter to all members and that they would distribute the correspondence and recommended materials to the committee. "Staff is gonna send that out to every member of the committee," a staff member said during the meeting.
Participants debated whether caucus statements or individual members contacting legislators are permissible. One member said they have used caucus letterhead in the past to show others were co-signers, while others said the practice risks creating confusion about official county positions. Several members asked for guidance about appropriate use of county letterhead and whether the matter implicates Open Meetings Act procedures.
The committee did not take formal action. Members asked staff to circulate the letters and to obtain an opinion from the state's attorney on whether any rules or Open Meetings Act issues apply. Committee leadership said the item will be revisited after members review the circulated materials.
