Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board, Chamber clash over tourism contract; Chili Fest may move to Woodville
Summary
Baldwin board members and tourism-committee representatives debated a proposed tourism partnership contract requiring a release of claims; the Chamber declined to sign, the board tabled street-closure approvals, and the Chamber is pursuing a permit in Woodville while members raise concerns about open-records and alleged threats of litigation.
A multi-hour exchange at the Baldwin Village Board meeting focused on a dispute between the village and the local Chamber of Commerce over a tourism partnership contract and the future location of the Chamber's Chili Fest.
Board and tourism-committee members said they conditioned a tourism partnership and use of tourism funds on a standard contract that included a release of claims. A tourism-committee representative (S13) said the contract language was standard practice in other communities and was intended to provide mutual release of claims when public funds or services are provided. "Release of claims is standard practice, especially when they bring forward a lawyer and threaten to sue the village repeatedly," S13 said.
Chamber representatives (speakers in the meeting and the chamber's attorney per remarks) told the board they had not had adequate time to review the contract; the Chamber reported it received the contract only days before and that its board planned to review it at a scheduled meeting. Chamber representatives and others at the meeting said an open-records request and other documentation requested by the chamber had not been provided in full, and that as a result they sought legal counsel to advise the Chamber board. "We requested the open records, paid that fee, and to date still don't have that," said a chamber representative (S16).
Because a tourism-committee vote had conditioned street-closure approvals on a signed contract, the village tabled street-closure requests for trick-or-treat and the horse parade and delayed approving closure requests for the Chili Fest while the contract and related negotiations proceed. Chamber leaders told board members they were pursuing an alternative: seeking approval in nearby Woodville, and several speakers said the Chili Fest could move there if an agreement with Baldwin was not reached.
The discussion included sharp language and public frustration about social-media posts and community division. Multiple trustees called for better communication. The tourism committee and the chamber reported differing recollections of meetings and whether a contract was provided in advance.
The board voted to table the street-closure approvals and asked for further follow-up; the Chamber planned to review the contract with its attorney the following morning and to advise the board of the outcome. No litigation was filed at the meeting; participants on both sides described the possibility and past instances of counsel exchanging legal positions.
