Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges delay of voluntary separation agreement approved on consent agenda
Summary
A Lemont resident told the board the voluntary separation agreement for Gerald Therese, approved on the consent agenda, lacks public justification and could cost taxpayers more than $34,000 plus six months of paid health insurance; she asked the board to reject or delay the agreement until more information is provided.
The Lemont Village Board approved a consent agenda that included a voluntary separation agreement with Gerald Therese, prompting public comment that the payout and confidentiality provisions demand fuller public explanation.
At the meeting, which opened with a roll call and the mayor’s reports, the board approved a packet of routine items — including Resolution R-34-26 described at the dais as a voluntary separation agreement and a related voluntary employment separation incentive program — on a single motion. Trustee Forsley moved to approve the consent agenda and Trustee Snagowski seconded; the item passed on a roll-call vote before public comment began.
During the audience-participation portion of the meeting, resident Laura Bridal of Lemont said she opposed the separation agreement and asked the board to delay approval. "This agreement asks taxpayers to fund a severance package of over $34,000 plus six months of fully paid health insurance along with additional payouts of accrued vacation and sick time," Bridal said. She also raised alarms about a "sweeping release of liability" in the document and said the public had no explanation for why the separation was needed or why the payment was justified.
Bridal urged transparency, saying that if there are no underlying issues the village should have no reason to limit public information; if there are issues, she said taxpayers deserve to know what they are. "When a government entity moves to eliminate accountability through legal release, the public deserves to know what exactly is being resolved and why it is worth this cost," she said.
The board did not reopen the consent agenda item during the meeting. No response from the board that night explained the rationale for the payout, and no additional discussion or amendment to R-34-26 was recorded in the public meeting. The village clerk and mayor proceeded to other agenda items; the meeting concluded with no executive session and a scheduled return in two weeks.
The meeting record shows the separation agreement was placed on the consent agenda and approved before public comment. Residents in attendance and the written record requested further disclosure about the agreement’s justification, the specific financial figures and any conditions that led to the separation; the board did not provide those details during this meeting.
