The Kane County Board on Tuesday considered Resolution 25-453 to appoint a one-year replacement for the District 2 vacancy but failed to pass the measure after a series of procedural votes, an unsuccessful amendment to substitute a different candidate and a brief closed session called on legal advice.

Madam Chair nominated Matthew Dingledon to fill the temporary vacancy left when Mary Berman withdrew her interest; the chair described Dingledon as a long-time county resident, an environmentalist and a regional sales manager and said those qualities made him a suitable one-year appointee. Board counsel warned members that state law provides a roughly 60-day window for appointments, citing “December 1” as the critical date.

The meeting included a public comment from Brian Anderson of Sugar Grove, who said the board’s earlier statements suggested it should favor a candidate not listed on the upcoming ballot and urged members to revisit that guidance. During board discussion, member Gumbs read a prepared statement apologizing for the board’s handling of the vacancy process, saying, “We’ve not handled the District 2 vacancy process as clearly or transparently as the public deserves.”

After motioning to consider Resolution 25-453, the board first faced a failed attempt to "call the question" (to end debate), which required a two-thirds vote and did not reach the threshold. Counsel recommended a brief closed session to discuss appointment and related litigation matters; the board voted to enter closed session for “the appointment of a person to public office” and for settlement and litigation discussions. On returning from closed session, a motion by Sanchez to amend the resolution and substitute Kim Young for the nominated candidate was put to a roll call and failed.

A separate motion to table the resolution also failed after the roll call resulted in a tie. The board then held a final roll call on Resolution 25-453; the clerk announced the motion did not pass and the appointment failed, leaving the District 2 seat unfilled. After the vote, a motion to adjourn carried and the board closed the special meeting.

Votes at a glance
- Resolution 25-453 (appoint nominated individual to District 2): failed on final roll call (roll call count recorded in transcript: multiple yes/no/abstain responses; clerk announced “Does not pass”).
- Amendment to substitute Kim Young for the nominated candidate: failed on roll call.
- Motion to table the resolution: failed (tie reported by clerk).
- Motion to enter closed session (appointment and litigation): passed (clerk recorded that the motion passed over three no votes).

Why it matters
The board is legally constrained by a short statutory timeframe to fill vacancies, which counsel cited during the meeting. Several members expressed concern about fairness and the optics of appointing a candidate who is also running on the ballot, and a board member publicly apologized for process shortcomings. Because the appointment failed, the board must decide whether to act again before the statutory timeframe elapses or leave the seat vacant pending further action.

What’s next
Counsel told the board the law contemplates a 60-day appointment window and referenced December 1; he also said some legal consequences and procedural options should be discussed in closed session. The board did not complete an appointment during the special meeting; no new date for reconsideration was set on the public record before adjournment.