Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees clash over temporary deputy‑clerk ordinance as missing attestations and litigation fuel tensions
Summary
The board debated a proposed temporary acting deputy‑clerk ordinance intended to allow prompt attestation of ordinances and resolutions when the elected clerk is absent. Trustees split over whether the measure would usurp the clerk’s statutory authority; the item was tabled after a roll‑call vote. The meeting also featured extended public comment and mayoral remarks defending the recently approved park‑district referendum amid trustees’ ongoing litigation.
Trustees engaged in a contentious debate over an ordinance (agenda item F2G) that would appoint a temporary acting deputy clerk authorized to attest to ordinances and resolutions within 48 hours if the elected village clerk is unable to do so.
Why it was on the agenda: Village staff said many documents in the village packet lacked the clerk’s attestation or signature, which staff argued was delaying submissions to state grantors and other agencies. The ordinance was drafted as a temporary measure to ensure continuity of village business when the clerk is unavailable and was structured so the deputy’s authority would be limited to attestation and only apply if the clerk did not sign within 48 hours.
Opposition and due process concerns: Several trustees, including Trustee Thompson and others, argued the ordinance as drafted could infringe the clerk’s statutory right to choose her deputy and that the board should not appear to usurp that authority. Trustees who opposed immediate action urged tabling until the clerk could be present to speak to the proposal and recommended clarifying language to preserve the clerk’s selection power.
Procedural outcome: Trustee Brooks moved to table F2G until mid‑July (date debated between July 14 and July 20); the motion to table passed on a roll‑call vote. Manager Scott and other trustees stressed the proposal was intended as a temporary backup to keep village business moving, not to remove the clerk’s power of appointment.
Broader context and litigation: The debate unfolded alongside broader governance tensions at the village. Earlier in the meeting and in subsequent trustee comments, members referenced outstanding FOIA disputes and litigation (a trustee‑filed lawsuit concerning FOIA responses and a separate suit challenging the recently approved park district). Mayor Rudz used closing remarks to frame the park‑district litigation as a democratic issue—arguing residents voted for the district and that litigation delaying programs has real community consequences, including on summer youth employment and programming funded by the district.
Representative quotes: “This is temporary to assist in hopefully just getting up to date… it does not take away her appointment power,” a trustee said in debate; Trustee Thompson countered, “We can’t usurp her authority — the clerk must be able to choose her own deputy.” Mayor Rudz urged that the referendum results be honored and asked trustees to consider the practical consequences litigation has on residents.
Next steps: The ordinance (F2G) was tabled to a summer date for additional drafting and for the clerk to be present. Trustees requested clearer drafting that preserves the clerk’s statutory appointment authority and asked staff to produce a schedule for getting outstanding attestations and paperwork up to date.
Speakers quoted: Trustee Brooks said the temporary deputy provision was a practical “plan B” to prevent delays; Trustee Thompson and others insisted on preserving the clerk’s statutory authority; Mayor Rudz said the ongoing litigation delaying park‑district implementation had real consequences for youth and seniors in the community.
