Posts
This city council can initially structure the municipal government. Once that is accomplished and the city is under the manager form, the power of the council is almost entirely legislative. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-6.
The city council retains ability to control by the power to approve or not approve all municipal expenses and liabilities. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-6. The manager's projects are subject to the council's power over the purse. The council can also abolish offices. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-8.
The final power the council has is that it can fire the manager from office. He/she can be removed at any time by a majority vote of the members of the council. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7. A wise manager knows how many votes he needs to stay hired.
Trump Wins Budget Battle in House, Christmas Tree Bill Chopped Down
-
The U.S. House passed the 118 page bill devised after Prudent -Elect Trump
trashed the 1500+ page Christmas tree alternative worked out to gain votes
fro...
13 hours ago
2 comments:
This exact realization struck me when I was a VP (employee) of an 1,100-member chamber of commerce in 1986. I had thought that chamber work would be ideal for me as a proponent of small business, representative of business interests, promoter of business, defender against unfair legislation and the like. It didn't take me long to realize that, when a chamber had a board of directors with 21 members, you'd better keep 11 of them happy or you'd be unemployed.
What's going on in Woodstock is not entirely clear to the public, and it should be.
It seems to me that Police Chief Lowen could not instigate a court case without the approval of the City Manager. And it seems to be that the City Manager would not approve the filing of such a court case (the City against one of its own Boards) without the approval of the City Council.
To me it looks like the buck stops with the City Council. At least four of the seven must have been in agreement with this legal action. But when did they agree?
Did they do this in executive session? Are they not required to inform the public when they make a decision to file a court case against THEIR OWN Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. Yes, the court case is public record, but I don't recall reading anything about the City Council's having approved its filing.
The Chief didn't like the decision of the BOFPC. Why did he (the City) include Sgt. Gorski in the court case, driving up Sgt. Gorski's legal expenses? What role did the Office of the City Attorney play in the decision to include Gorski?
And why didn't Sgt. Gorski's attorney file a Motion to have Gorski removed from this action?
And why wasn't the City's Board of Fire and Police Commissioners represented at the court date with Judge McIntyre? After all, the case is really against the Board's decision to exonerate Sgt. Gorski, order him back to work and direct that the City pay him all back wages!
Gus,
Those are all good questions and comments but I suspect that the citizens of Woodstock Illinois will never know the answers. Secrecy and lack of transparency in city government appears to be the guiding priciple. Who is resoponsible for this guiding principle I don't know. I allege it has to be one of three entities: the city manager, the city council or the city attorney ...or all three. Seems more like the Soviet Union than a small midwestern town. Citizens beware when you don't know what your city government is doing with your money and appears to not want to tell you about it. Hang onto your wallets...its going to a wild and wooly ride. It may take some time but I can assure you that the truth will come out in the end...in one way or another...it always does.
Post a Comment