Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manteno mayor and trustees clash over authority to appoint village attorney
Summary
At the July 6 Manteno Village Board meeting the mayor declared a recent special meeting invalid and said trustees lack authority to appoint a village attorney; trustees disputed that claim, leading to appeals, procedural rulings and threats of vetoes.
The Manteno mayor told the village board on July 6 that a special meeting held last week was "fake and imaginary" and therefore any actions taken at that meeting were invalid, asserting that under village code and Illinois law the mayor (president) holds appointment authority for the village attorney.
"The purported special meeting was not lawfully convened," the mayor said, reading a prepared statement that cited chapter 9 of the Manteno Village Code and section 65 ILCS 5 (Illinois Municipal Code) on mayoral appointment authority.
Trustees disputed the mayor's characterization and the legal effect of the prior meeting. Trustee Geske said the board had voted previously to retain Joe Kankar as their attorney and asked that the record show they did not "recognize this attorney" named by the mayor. Joe Kankar, who was seated at the table and addressed the board, said, "I am officially your attorney."
The disagreement generated multiple procedural appeals. Acting village attorney Brian Miller read the village ordinance language on appointment (citing the office-creation and advice-and-consent language) and advised the board on parliamentary procedure. Trustees moved and seconded appeals of the chair's rulings; at points the mayor ruled items out of order and later trustees sought to overrule that ruling by appeal. The meeting included sustained debate over whether motions were properly before the board and whether certain votes could proceed.
Board discussion also touched on enforcement of procurement rules and whether professional services agreements at issue required competitive bidding. The dispute over attorney status and procedural rulings left the board divided; the mayor said she intended to veto at least one item later in the meeting, and one trustee predicted the matter might ultimately be decided in court.
Why it matters: The question of who properly holds appointment authority for legal counsel affects who can represent the village and how its legal work is managed. The dispute also consumed considerable meeting time and drew repeated criticism from public commenters who urged the board to restore civility and focus on municipal business.
Next steps: Trustees and counsel said they will seek clarity in writing about proper procedures; one trustee asked staff to schedule follow-up meetings about outstanding legal and procedural questions. The mayor’s veto threat and the unresolved procedural appeals mean the issue may return to a future board meeting or require legal clarification outside the boardroom.
