Open letter to Mr. Tim Clifton, City Manager Woodstock IL

Dear Mr. Clifton:

In today's Northwest Herald, Friday, May 1, 2009, you were quoted as saying "The city's interest always is to protect residents and taxpayers and to be a good steward of tax dollars. ...we also want to be fair and equitable to city employees."

So far I have not experienced that aspect of the "city's interest" towards its employees. I hope that some time in the very near future I will experience your quoted words in real forward moving modalities of action to resolve this situation of which you are aware.

I am not saying this to be rude or blamful but I would recommend that before totally backing your departments heads you adopt the late President Ronald Reagan's philosophy, "trust but verify". As they say there is always another side to a story and in the news business always a "back story" that can change the whole complexion of what you may have been told along with what people may have told you are iron clad facts and incontrovertible.

Sincerely,
Richard W. Gorski, M.D.

David W McArdle...Did Not Phone Back?!

Well its been a few weeks since David W. McArdle called for a special meeting of all the attorneys involved with the litigation between the Chief of Police, Robert Lowen and Sgt. Steven R. Gorski of the Woodstock Police Department. Well the meeting occurred with all the city's paid attorneys and the two representing the Sergeant.
All the attorneys had their say if they wanted to say anything and Mr. McArdle said he would get back to the Sergeant's two attorneys as soon as possible with a response to the Sergeant's request. Well guess what...to the best of my knowledge...there has been no response. No response that the Sergeant has heard from either of his two attorneys or Mr. McArdle of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood and McArdle a law firm in Crystal Lake that has been being paid for over a year now by the City of Woodstock's taxpayers money. This is getting to be a really expensive adventure for these tough economic times to expend the tax payers money to infuse into the coffers of a well endowed out of town law firm. I suspect that the city's payments to Zukowski, Rogers, Flood and McArdle will continue until at some point the tax payers, many of whom are out of work, say "end this" ..."enough is enough". The only people who are winning in this scenario are the attorneys. Maybe its time for the taxpayers of Woodstock to have a special meeting with their elected city officials who I presume have been calling the "shots" and "spending their money".

Woodstock IL....Continuing Saga of Sgt. Gorski

On February 14, 2008 the Woodstock Illinois Fire and Police Commissioners vindicated Patrol Sergeant Steven R. Gorski, for lack of evidence, of all complaints filed against him by Police Chief, Robert W. Lowen Jr. This followed a 4 1/2 month prosecution by Lowen and his city paid attorney Anne Brophy of the firm of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle. After all was said and done by the prosecution, including taking the testimony of a multitude of witnesses the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners returned a unanimous decision in Sgt. Gorski's favor; not one commissioner voted against him. Of even more significance is the fact that not one commissioner asked that any disciplinary action be taken against him.

On February 14, 2008 the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners signed the following official document:

"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Charges against the Respondent (Sgt. Gorski) be dismissed. The Board having held that the Charges against the Respondent (Sgt. Gorski) are not sustained, orders that the Respondent (Sgt. Gorski) be reimbursed for any wages withheld as a result of the Respondent's suspension without pay pending the hearing. The Chief of the Police Department and other appropriate corporate authorities are directed to implement this order forthwith."

Well, it is now (8) eight months later and the Chief, Robert Lowen and other appropriate corporate authorities of the City of Woodstock Illinois have not implemented the direct order of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. From all sensible points of view that sounds like the Chief and appropriate corporate authorities are allegedly guilty of insubordination and not obeying a direct order given to them. Sgt. Gorski still has not seen one penny of the money due him. How many of you could survive and take care of a family on no income?

I would hope and pray that the City Council of the City of Woodstock Illinois would stop this travesty of justice and common sense from continuing by complying with the order and directly dismissing those individuals who were ordered to comply forthwith by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and freely choose not to follow the order. The Sgt. should also be paid all money due him per order of the Board.

No one in public service, no mater what rank or level of power and supervision they hold are above the rule of law and those who believe they are need to move on to some other endeavor. I pray that this foolishness ends.

WOODSTOCK ILLINOIS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER...FILLED TO CAPACITY

The chamber was filled to capacity with about a dozen or so citizens standing along the side and back wall. I was only able to attend the first half of the public comments section of the meeting; I suspect another blog will give you a more in debt report (www.woodstockadvocate.com).

Two members of the public voiced their dissatisfaction on the apparent increase in crime and crime related activities in Woodstock and the apparent lack of leadership and transmission of information to the public. One of the speakers, was very displeased with the way the "man with a gun" incident was managed and questioned the alleged quality of the leadership of the Woodstock Police Department. The mayor, Dr. B. Sager stated that the council is aware of the communities concerns and will implement actions that will make sure this, to the best of their abilities, does not happen again. The Police Chief, Robert W. Lowen Jr. was present at the time of the public comments and had no comments.

PEOPLE UPSET WITH CHIEF LOWEN?...TO FILL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS THIS TUESDAY?

Unofficial word on the street is that the citizens of Woodstock Illinois are allegedly very, very upset with the way things have been handled by the Chief of Police Robert W. Lowen Jr. From what I have heard a number of them will be showing up for the Tuesday meeting of the City Council to voice their complaints of the way public safety and crime matters have been handled over the last several days and I don't think they will be willing to settle for a cup of coffee...even a premium imported blend.
PS: Meeting will be held a 7 PM on this coming Tuesday at the City Hall in the Council Chambers.

Coffee with Chief Lowen...an expensive blend!

Well, the chief, the city attorneys and the city of Woodstock managed to stretch it out for another two months....until October 15, 2008...that is 14 months since this began. At that time Judge Maureen McIntyre will have a hearing on this matter. He, that is Sergeant Gorski has been found exonerated of the complaint filed by chief Lowen in Aug. of 2007 to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners by a 3 to 0 decision in February 2008. They,the Board directed the city and the chief to pay him all pay due him with interest as mandated by the State. He will not have been paid in over a year by the time of the hearing. How many of you could stick it out under those kinds of alleged strategic legal financial tactics employed by the alleged triumvirate of chief, city attorneys, and city? Not many I assure you; your pockets and checkbooks would be empty and you would be going down the "you know what". But help was available and is available and Sergeant Gorski will be around a long, long time...in fact as long as it takes to get justice...I assure you of that fact. What goes around, comes around. This has gone beyond process and could be presumed and alleged by some as an alleged vend eta towards the Sergeant.

I hope the tax payers of Woodstock Illinois are keeping track of how many hundreds of thousands of dollars each ounce in that cup of coffee with chief is costing them. I am surprised that not one of them has asked yet.

Timothy J Clifton City Manager Woodstock IL

The City Manager's authority is stated in section 5/5-3-7 of the Illinois Municipal Code. What he may and may not do in relation to the mayor and council and the administration of the city government is stated in the above section.

1. Enforcing laws and ordinance. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7(1). He is responsible for the efficient enforcement of nuisance, traffic and regulatory ordinances through the police department; for enforcing building codes through the building department and enforcing zoning and land use regulations through the zoning administrator and zoning board of appeals or plan commission. He has the responsibility for all of this enforcement activity.
2. Appointing and removing all departmental directors based upon merit and fitness. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7(2). This means he has the authority to hire and fire all department heads. In essence it means he controls who gets hired or fired in all departments and divisions of the city. 65 ILCS 5/5-3.7(3). This authority includes the power to appoint and remove the chief of police. Every other department head and appointees serve at the pleasure of the city manager and city manager serves at the pleasure of the city council. It is obvious that the manager shall not discriminate illegally in hiring and firing decisions; in that sense he is not above the law or legal actions if alleged hiring or firings are proven to be illegal or discriminatory.
3. Controlling all municipal departments and divisons thereof. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7(3)
4. Appointing and removing all appointive officers of a municipality formerly under the aldermanic form of government. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7(4).
5. Exercising all powers otherwise granted to clerks and comptrollers in connection with the preparation of an annual report of estimated funds. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7(5). In other words he, the city manager, is responsible for all the finanacial data needed to be seen by the Mayor and City Council. By using this power he has further control over department heads because he controls the budget that determines the departments finances.
6. The City Manager is the only individual that has the right to attend and participate in council meetings. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7(6). Obviosly this places him in an important position because in many cases he is the only source of information and interpretation of specific problems or situations that may arise by which the City Council may make decisions.
7. He has the right to recommend legislative action. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7(7).
8. Performing and executing any other duties prescribed by the City Council. 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7(8). He generally cannot create new offices or positions, incur any expenditures or enter into any contracts, as these are legislative and delegative functions left to the City Council. With authorization of the City Council he may however do so.

I have sat on many boards of directors over the last 35 years and usually we would routinely evaluate the individual who was acting as the equivalet to the City Manager at 6 month intervals; I hope and trust that the Woodstock City Council is doing the same. Remember what President Ronald Reagan said "trust but verify".

RETURN TO WORK AGREEMENTS

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (www.dol.gov/elaws) Sept. 16, 2007 "a Return-to-Work Agreement (RTWA) is a written document that sets forth the expectations that the employer and the employee assistance/medical professional have of an employee who has completed mandated treatment for alcohol and/or drug problems." This agreement is to be used if an individual has a primary alcohol and/or drug problem. Primary meaning that his/her alcohol and/or drug problems are the basis of the work related problems that are occurring. It is not designed to be used on an individual whose primary problem is a work related injury or injuries or disease who is under the care of a licensed physician who prescribes the drugs for either cure or mitigation of symptoms such as pain or any of a myriad of others. One example of the misuse of this type of RTWA would be to force a employee, lets say who has cancer, to sign the RTWA because the drug the employee's physician has prescribed might at times cause nausea and or vomiting and interfere with workplace routine. The RTWA to be used must be for an underlying primary alcohol and/or drug problem and not used to impede the treatment of an underlying disease or injury or injuries, especially if said injury or injuries were sustained in the workplace. It, the RTWA is not meant to be a "one size fits all" agreement; that should be obvious to all rational and sensible people. It should not be used to "get rid" of or discard employees that are becoming a logistical or financial problem for the employer...to use it for this reason would be amoral and allegedly illegal.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor "Developing a RTWA requires:

• Coordination between the employee, employer, union, Employee Assistance Program and/ or treatment professionals.
• Compliance with the organization's policies and legal obligations, as well as medical recommendations.
• Prior notification through company policy that an RTWA would be expected as a condition of continued employment.

I hope all people of honor and conscience in positions of authority use a RTWA for the benefit of the employee and not as an illicit tool to solve their self motivated problems with that employee. In the end we all will have to answer for our actions especially when they affect the welfare of other individuals and their families.

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE?

It took the Justice Department of the Federal Government over 5 years of legal shenanigans, delaying tactics and probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of legal costs to realize that they were on the wrong road in trying to connect Mr. Steven Hatfill with the 2001 anthrax attacks. On June 27, 2008 the Justice Department agreed to pay Hatfill a settlement valued at $5.85 million just to drop a lawsuit against them. The scientist Mr. Hatfill stood his ground against the might of of Feds and won . He contended that his privacy rights were violated in the rush to solve the heinous crimes.

Some contend and allege that a similar situation (except we are not talking criminal) is brewing in the City of Woodstock's Police Department and with its Chief of Police, Robert W. Lowen Jr. and the City's own Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and now co-defendant with the Board Sergeant Steven R. Gorski. Lowen contends and alleges that the Board of Commissioners along with its experienced attorney were wrong in finding that Lowen and his City's attorneys did not make their case and present the burden of proof that was needed to make the Chief's case for dismissal. Some even allege that this further legal action of asking for administrative review was taken to lessen the trauma to the Chief's ego and alleged sense of full power and control over his department. He allegedly wants to be surrounded by team players, could that be another name for "yes" men and Sergeant Gorski is a team player for the citizens of Woodstock and his fellow officers and has been for over nineteen (19) years but perhaps not allegedly enough of a "yes" man for the Chief.

Nowhere in the City's initial argument does it mention an in the line of duty injury on two occasions to his spine or his assisting a fellow officer with a question that allegedly "ticked off" the Chief .The in-line of duty injury caused the Sergeant to use his sick days and assisting a subordinate minority female officer may have been instrumental in causing the Chief and City some further legal problems with said minority officer when I was told she allegedly filed a federal complaint against the Chief and City. When he assisted said officer it was in his capacity as her sergeant after a lawful question was asked of him.

When is the City going to realize that continuing to go down this long wrong road is only making their position more tenuous and costly....using tax payer dollars to allegedly assuage some one's feelings is the wrong way of approaching this problem.

Reminders To Woodstock Illinois City Council Members

MUNICIPAL CODE WOODSTOCK ILLINOIS



1.3.2: DEFINITIONS, GENERAL:



NEGLIGENT: The word "negligent".....imports a want of such attention to the nature of probable consequences of the act or omission as a reasonable prudent man bestows in acting in his own concern.



NUISANCE: Anything offensive or obnoxious to the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the City: or any act or thing repugnant to, or creating a hazard to, or having a detrimental effect on the property of another person or to the community.



PERSONAL PROPERTY: Includes every description of money, goods, chattels, effects, evidence of rights in action and all written instruments by which pecuniary obligation, right to title of property is created, acknowledged, transferred, increased, defeated, discharged or diminished and every right of interest therein.





1.4.1: GENERAL PENALTY:



Any person violating any provision of this Code, or any rule or regulation adopted or issued in pursuance thereof, or a provision of any code adopted herein by reference shall, unless another penalty is specifically provided, upon conviction, be fined in any sum not less than five dollar ($5.00) nor more that five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisoned for a term not exceeding six (6) months. Each act of violation and each day upon which a violation occurs constitutes a separate offence. (1963 Code, 1.09; amd. 1986 Code)



1.4.3: RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS



Each person concerned in the commission of an act prohibited by this Code, whether he directly commits the act, or prosecutes, counsels, aids or abets in its commission, may be prosecuted and, on conviction, is punishable as if he had directly committed such act. (1963 Code 1.08)