Trustees clash over police chief hiring and alleged leak of confidential material

Trustees at the Village of Lisle meeting on March 3 debated whether to move into an executive session to interview an apparent police chief candidate after at least one trustee said confidential information that had been limited to executive-session distribution was publicly leaked.

The dispute began after Mayor (name not specified) asked for a motion to recess into closed session to discuss “appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of a specific employee of the village.” Trustee Greco moved the motion; it received no second and, after extended discussion, the motion failed.

Trustees and staff described the hiring process used earlier in the search: a multi-step recruitment run with assistance from the chiefs association and an assessment center. Trustee Mullen said the candidate had not completed the assessment center that other finalists had undergone, and she and others urged that the candidate go through that same assessment first. “I agree with Trustee Mullen that the other candidates have had to follow a standard process which included going through the assessment center prior to this interview phase,” she said.

Several trustees also said they would not trust an immediate executive session while the source of the leak remained unknown. Trustee Saima said she received a copy of an executive-session agenda item four hours before a public event and blamed a “known associate” of the mayor for distributing it; she called for identifying who leaked the information before resuming closed-session deliberations. “For that information to be leaked ... I want to know who leaked it,” she said.

Village Attorney (name not specified) and Village Manager (name not specified) advised that executive session may be held at any point in a meeting so long as legal formalities are observed. The village attorney also confirmed that the agenda language provided to announce an executive session is the statutorily prescribed language used to reference personnel matters under state law and that the detailed substance of a closed session should not be disclosed publicly.

Trustees described a timeline: the assessment-center phase and the chiefs association engagement concluded in December; the contract with the interim recruitment consultant ended afterward. Trustee Saima and others said the interim chief’s engagement concluded in January and that trustees received little information after that. Several trustees said they had been surprised by the rapid effort to schedule an interview earlier in the week and by an informal Thursday gathering that did not produce a quorum; that informal gathering was recorded and is available, which some trustees said compounded confidentiality concerns.

Public commenter Kim Brondyke, a former village trustee and park district commissioner, urged the board to resolve the chief appointment quickly, saying the village needs a stable police chief. “I hope that all of you will resolve this issue soon because we need a stable police chief in this town,” she said.

Trustees proposed next steps that mirror their concerns: (1) complete the assessment-center step for this candidate before interviewing; (2) investigate how executive-session material was shared before returning to closed-session hiring discussions; and (3) solicit any outstanding background checks and references. Several trustees said the candidate had offered to meet individually with trustees while the assessment or other vetting is completed.

No formal appointment, interview in closed session, or vote on the candidate occurred at the March 3 meeting. The discussion closed with trustees planning follow-up—some asking staff to recontact the chiefs association to arrange a formal assessment center, others proposing dates for a special meeting to complete interviews once the outstanding procedural and confidentiality questions are addressed.

Ending: Trustees left the matter open. Multiple trustees said they favored moving carefully to protect candidates’ confidentiality and to preserve parity between finalists; others emphasized urgency for a permanent chief. The board did not vote on any appointment or take formal action to open or close an executive session on the topic at the March 3 meeting.