Attorney appointment sparks heated split on Manteno Village Board

Mayor Jessica Lammore introduced James (Jim) Vicelli of Vicelli Law as a candidate for village attorney and asked the board to consider appointing the firm. Vicelli and two associates introduced themselves and described their municipal practice. Trustees questioned Vicelli about a decades-old incident reported in national press; he acknowledged the matter but characterized it as 25 years old and said he would uphold attorney-client privilege.

A motion to accept Vicelli as village attorney (motion by Trustee Barry, second by Trustee Vaughn) was put to roll call and failed. In response, the mayor said she had authority under state law and the village code to make an emergency 30-day appointment and announced that Vicelli would represent the village for the next 30 days. Separately, trustees moved to disapprove the removal of the prior firm and to reinstate Joe Canar and the law offices of Lewis F. Canar; that motion passed on a subsequent roll call.

Trustees pressed several governance and ethics questions during the exchange. Trustee questions included whether Vicelli or his firm had been compensated by the mayor or related parties (Vicelli answered no), and whether Vicelli had been involved in other public- records or prosecutorial matters; Vicelli said he handled many municipal matters and would protect client confidentiality. Trustee Budro and others expressed concern about appointing new counsel while litigation and disputes remain active; Trustee Barry said he preferred waiting until pending litigation was resolved before replacing long-serving counsel.

The back-and-forth drew sharp language from multiple board members and the mayor, who defended her authority to appoint officers and said she would continue to exercise her elected powers. Several trustees criticized the mayor’s process and transparency. Following argument about whether the temporary appointment required the attorney’s presence in executive session, the board voted to enter executive session to discuss threatened or pending litigation pursuant to the Open Meetings Act. The public session recessed and the board asked the public to leave while it met in closed session.

Why it matters: the village’s legal representation affects who advises the board on litigation, contract reviews and compliance with open-government laws. The dispute also highlights broader tensions on the board about appointments, transparency and the timing of counsel changes amid ongoing legal matters.

Next steps: the board entered closed session to discuss litigation; no further public action was taken before recessing.