The Village recently released edited audio recordings from the August Village Board meeting, which we understand was relatively well attended.
Five residents made public comments at the beginning of the meeting, including a former member of the Zoning Board and a recently defeated Village Trustee in the April election. Most of their comments centered on the special Village Board meeting scheduled for later this month, and on an item under the Administration agenda titled, “Compensation for Special Counsel.”
Before listening to the public comments made, readers should know what the special counsel compensation discussion item and vote was all about.
Earlier this year during the February Village Board meeting, former Trustees Messer, Selman and Meroni along with current board members Gohl and Harrington voted to set special counsel compensation at $0 to thwart an investigation into any improprieties that may have occurred in the process leading to the passage of the Commercial Horse Boarding Amendment.
In their ill-advised and reckless haste in doing so, they amended Title 1, Chapter 6, Section 1-6-6 of our Village Code covering compensation for all current special counsels retained by the Village. Special Counsels are employed by the Village in various capacities: for labor negotiations, traffic court and other special attorneys besides the regular Village Attorney.
Therefore, in actuality since February, when Village Board voted monthly to approve those attorneys’ bills, it was inadvertently violating the defective amended compensation code, so clearly, the code needed to be corrected.
The second speaker of the night was a former Zoning Board member who has taken credit for single handedly crafting a number of changes to the commercial horse boarding text amendment proposal submitted by the owner of Oakwood Farms, LLC, Benjamin LeCompte, which was ultimately adopted after a veto. Some consider his comments to be threatening to the Board, but we’ll leave that to our readers. His comments can be heard by clicking here.
The fifth speaker, a former trustee, voiced her concern over settlement of a case stemming from a resident’s violation of the Heritage Tree Ordinance in Cook County court system. What she failed or refused to recognize is the ordinance has not been consistently enforced by our Building Department over the years since its passage, and that inconsistency dramatically diluted the effectiveness of the ordinance, especially in a court of law. Her comments can be heard here.
The balance of the meeting that lasted just over two hours was fairly routine until the Administration portion that lasted over forty minutes, thanks mostly to Trustee Harrington.
During that part of the meeting, President McLaughlin formally announced a special Village Board meeting which will take place in September to allow residents to weigh in on whether the Village should potentially settle litigation (Drury et al. v. Village of Barrington Hills) against the Village. Settlement could mean voiding or repealing the Commercial Horse Boarding Text Amendment code passed earlier this year.
Next, McLaughlin prefaced the discussion on compensation for special counsel by stating that he has no immediate intention of retaining any new counsel, investigatory or otherwise. A range of $175-650 per hour was discussed, the higher end of the range being suggested by Village Administrator, Bob Kosin. After the ensuing discussion, the motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with Gohl and Harrington voting nay.
Trustee Harrington then expressed his dissatisfaction that the President, and not the Board of Trustees, can appoint special counsel, despite the fact that this has been the case for nearly 50 years in Barrington Hills, and Illinois statutes and case law support it. Harrington was informed multiple times that the only way this could be changed would through a referendum voted on by residents, since such a change would alter our form of government.
Not pleased with this answer, Harrington made a motion seconded by Gohl that would allow the board to vote on compensation for each individual special counsel, thus allowing for another vote to set compensation at $0. Harrington’s motion failed by a vote of 5-2, with only he and Gohl voting in favor.
To listen to the entire special counsel discussion and vote recording, click here.
The menu for the edited audio segments from the entire August 24th meeting can be accessed here.
I join my [former] colleague on the ZBA, Kurt Anderson in welcoming an independent investigation by VBH BOT. But unlike my esteemed colleague, Kurt Anderson, I will not need to “lawyer-up at the expense of VBH taxpayers”.
The independent investigator can ask me any questions under oath he or she wants behind closed doors or in plain view before each of you for I have nothing to hide or fear.
I join in with Kurt, VBH BOT, “Bring it on”!
As I listened to Kurt Anderson’s shaky voice, suggesting he might “lawyer up”, i.e., take the Fifth Amendment, refuse to answer questions” , I can only assume he has much to hide. Continuing on, Mr, Anderson strongly suggested he would cause the Village residents to incur great expense paying “his” attorneys’ fees, Most atttorneys, including those residing in Barrington Hills, are hardworking professionals, who deserve to be recognized as “Officers of the Court.” However, there are those (attorneys) whose presence and comments at Village hearings are laced with arrogance and insults. Threats and bad behavior are no longer a winning tactic, haven’t you heard, Mr. Anderson, et. al.?
I attended this meeting…the first in a while and nothing has changed. The sense of distrust between the two “factions” that have divided this community is stronger than ever.
Side “A” changed the zoning classification of residential property before their majority was lost and the new majority, Side “B”, is now faced with making good on their campaign promise to solve the mess.
As Illinoisans flee for pastures where they don’t have to pay excessive taxes, more “For Sale” signs are going up and our reputation of having Barrington Hill-billy fights is alive so let’s have a real one without the guns.
No more lawyers…let each side pick one representative, put them in a corral and let them fight until the finish. Sounds bloody but even this wouldn’t resolve the problem. The continued drama feeds and strokes many inflated egos and there seems to be endless money to throw at private lawyers. In addition, the two factions would have a problem deciding what constitutes a hit “below the belt” and we would be right back at the starting point.
We are on a merry-go-round of discontent. Will it take more folks looking to move elsewhere? Will it take more horse lovers to board in more friendly, grown up neighboring villages to solve this stand-off?
Living in a Groundhog Day movie instead of BH is tiresome.
Whom ever wrote this piece would not know the truth if it bit him/her in the ***.
Kurt Anderson did not take sole credit or any credit for the text amendment at the BOT meeting.
Kurt Anderson did not make any threats to the current BOT members. He did point out that if the special counsel appointed to investigate BOT and ZBA former members that the village will have to pay for counsel for each member who is “targeted” for investigation .
He also asked that any BOT member disclose if they provide professional or business services for any BH’s residents that this should be disclosed. He also suggested that the Board pass an ethics ordinance. These were not and are not threats.
The text amendment was not special legislation for Berry and Cathy Lecompte. It was passed after years of study and public hearings and benefits many residents who board horses or who run boarding operations.
Contrast this above with President McLaughlin and his BOT minions who are trying desperately to assist Mr. and Mrs. Drury who have sued the Village in a “private” lawsuit. 2 of the 3 counts of Drury, et. al.’s complaint were voluntarily dismissed by those plaintiffs as they had absolutely no merit. The remaining count is also without merit and that is why Mr. President desperately wants to settle with the Drury plaintiffs so as to dismantle the text amendment to the pleasure of a very vocal minority of residents when the suit filed by his friends will fail and the ordinance will be upheld by a court of law.
I also feel that Mr. President and his trustees want to settle as they know that if the suit goes forward discovery will uncover many skeletons.
Re the setting of hourly fee rates for special counsel I agree with Trustee Harrington that this is usurping the Boards right to determine fees on an ad hoc basis which is always done in any attorney client representation agreement. Further $500 to $600 per hour is patently absurd. I have been representing Fortune 100 companies in complex litigation for 45 years and none of these clients would allow these hourly fees.
Also why are the trustees allowing the Bond firm to charge their hourly fees for driving their vehicles to meetings? Mileage charges ok but the residents of BH should not pay Bond $200+ per hour to commute to the place where they will perform legal services at the same hourly rate.
John J. Pappas, Sr.
I know a number of attorneys who are well educated and experienced who bill at or above $500 per hour. They know the only way to maintain that rate is through peak, efficient performance and to not waste client’s money or time since some clients make much more than that.
Oh and lest we forget, Burke Warren was charging something in the neighborhood of $440 per hour and that seems “patently absurd” as you put it. Yet a number of the old guard constantly complain they were asked to resign, which they did. Aren’t their complaints “patently absurd” considering the quality of municipal/zoning law expertise Bond Dickson brings to the table at about half the billing rate to Barrington Hills taxpayers?
To refresh Mr. Pappas’ memory, the following is taken from the transcript of the ZBA Meeting held on September 11, 2014. Clearly, Mr. Anderson takes credit for the language in the subject Amendment:
ZBA Transcript of 9/11/2014 Meeting (pages 101-107):
Page 101
13 MR. STIEPER: I’ve got questions.
14 Mr. Anderson, is it fair to say that the document I’m
15 looking at, the red would be all your changes?
16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can’t hear you.
17 MR. STIEPER: Can you hear me now? Would it
18 be fair to say that the document, the black print
19 would be LeCompte’s application, his language, and the
20 red would be your requested changes?
21 MR. ANDERSON: No, it’s probably not fair to
22 say that. For example, well — first, let me say that
23 I’m not an expert in Word, and so as I was using the
24 redlining version. I couldn’t figure out how to
Page 102
1 strike through language that Mr. LeCompte had struck.
2 For example, just using the simple one, the Home
3 Occupation. You’ll note that it’s deleted in red. If
4 you were to compare that against Mr. LeCompte’s
5 petition, it, too, was deleted. It’s just a little —
6 I wish it was — I wish I was better with Word but
7 that’s kind of my weakness.
8 MR. STIEPER: So if I look on the first
9 page, with regard to your — you know, I’ve read
10 LeCompte’s application.
11 MR. ANDERSON: Certainly.
12 MR. STIEPER: I think I’m somewhat familiar
13 with it, but now I’m handed this thing which has red
14 on the first page, which would be almost an entire
15 paragraph. Would it be fair to say the red on the
16 first page, those would be all your requested changes?
17 MR. ANDERSON: Hold on a moment. Let me
18 open my copy of LeCompte’s and we can walk through it
19 together. Okay. First page, yes, those are
20 generally — yes, those would be predominately my
21 changes, that’s correct.
22 MR. STIEPER: The first page, everything in
23 red is your changes. Second page?
24 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, the second page appears
Page 103
1 to be all my modifications, yes.
2 MR. STIEPER: So basically that would be
3 almost the entire page, with the exception of maybe
4 eight sentences?
5 MR. ANDERSON: That’s fair, yes.
6 MR. STIEPER: Okay. Third page, everything
7 in red, would that be —
8 MR. ANDERSON: Hold on a moment.
9 MR. STIEPER: — new language offered by
10 you?
11 MR. ANDERSON: Let’s see. Let’s walk
12 through paragraphs. A, sub three, all barns shall
13 be — shall have an animal waste management protocol
14 consistent with published — that was Mr. LeCompte’s
15 language.
16 MR. STIEPER: I’m on page 3.
17 MR. ANDERSON: Go back up a page. My
18 pagination doesn’t match specifically with his. So as
19 you insert paragraphs, there’s some shifts. So if we
20 start and you’ll note —
21 MR. STIEPER: I’m starting at lighting for
22 barns at the top.
23 MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
24 MR. STIEPER: Maybe that’s easier to do.
Page 104
1 MR. ANDERSON: Which is number four.
2 MR. STIEPER: Everything in red, that would
3 be your language?
4 MR. ANDERSON: That’s correct.
5 MR. STIEPER: Roman numeral V, which is all
6 red, would that be your language?
7 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that is my language in
8 that there was a lot of — if you were to read through
9 his paragraph five, it starts, well, no one wants
10 excess traffic and noise that would —
11 MR. STIEPER: Right. I see that.
12 MR. ANDERSON: I didn’t think that was
13 appropriate language to leave in, and I tried to
14 address —
15 MR. STIEPER: We’ll get to that. I just
16 want to get, I just want to understand. Now, the next
17 page I start with red shall only apply?
18 MR. ANDERSON: Let’s, okay, let’s, paragraph
19 Roman numeral VI, there shall be a limit, that is all
20 one, two — and subparagraphs one and two of that are
21 all Mr. LeCompte’s. The deletion of subparagraph
22 three of subsection six is my deletion.
23 MR. STIEPER: Roman numeral VII, that would
24 be your language?
Page 105
1 MR. ANDERSON: That is my language.
2 MR. STIEPER: Roman numeral VIII, that would
3 be your language?
4 MR. ANDERSON: That’s correct.
5 MR. STIEPER: Roman numeral IX, that would
6 be your language?
7 MR. ANDERSON: That’s correct.
8 MR. STIEPER: Then you have compliance,
9 which looks like it’s entirely stricken?
10 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
11 MR. STIEPER: Then we move on to the last
12 page which I have, which is part of compliance, which
13 is all stricken?
14 MR. ANDERSON: That’s correct.
15 MR. STIEPER: Then you have the Home
16 Occupation Ordinance, which looks like it’s stricken?
17 MR. ANDERSON: It’s stricken there, but that
18 was also stricken in Mr. LeCompte’s.
19 MR. STIEPER: So is it your intent then —
20 MR. ANDERSON: There’s also my addition at
21 the bottom relating to in pulling this into the
22 definition of accessory use at the bottom.
23 MR. STIEPER: Okay. Now, obviously you are
24 at a great advantage, you wrote this, you did this.
Page 106
1 We are at a great disadvantage. We got this at the
2 eleventh hour, and we are asked to, hopefully not,
3 decide tonight on whether this is even going to be
4 close to be acceptable. This is a lot of language,
5 would require a lot of study, just the language,
6 itself. But anyway, are you, in going through this,
7 Home Occupation is struck — is stricken?
8 MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
9 MR. STIEPER: Is it under your design here
10 basically to redact the Home Occupation Ordinance,
11 strike it out of our code?
12 MR. ANDERSON: No, only that portion
13 relating to horse boarding is redacted from.
14 MR. STIEPER: Let me rephrase that. The
15 Home Occupation Ordinance as it relates to horse
16 boarding, under your revised proposal here, it’s your
17 desire to basically do away with that portion of the
18 Home Occupation Ordinance?
19 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
20 MR. STIEPER: So if I understand it correct,
21 then everything with regard to commercial horse
22 boarding would fall under the stricture of LeCompte’s
23 original application and what is now your amendments;
24 is that correct?
Page 107
1 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
2 MR. STIEPER: And so take this to a full
3 length, with regard to boarding of horses in
4 Barrington Hills under your proposal, it would all
5 fall under what would be your text here; is that
6 correct?
7 MR. ANDERSON: There may be other provisions
8 in the code that impact upon it, but the regulation,
9 generally speaking, does fall strictly under here.
Why isn’t the lawsuit on the Commercial Boarding issue posted on the Village website for all to see?
Thank you Historian for taking the time to introduce facts taking the form of the actual record. Kurt Anderson said he, and he alone prepared the Anderson II Horse Boarding Amendment in the dark of night.
Let me introduce BHO readers to even more irrefutable facts. The original lawsuit was not between Drury and LeCompte but was between LeCompte and VBH after VBH ZBA held that Oakwood Farms commercial horse boarding operations exceeded boarding limits allowed under VBH HOO. LeCompte then sued VBH claiming he was “agriculture”. This argument by LeCompte failed at both the trial and appellate court level. VBH under the direction of Abboud spent @186,000.00 of taxpayer money against LeCompte in defending the ZBA cease and desist order which Abboud successfully did at both the trial and appellate court level.
Just when the VBH (not Drury) won against LeCompte, the Schuman Letter appeared 34 days after a $15,000 campaign donation from LeCompte in Feb. 2011 to Save 5 Acres candidates, Messer, Meroni and Selman. VBH then mysteriously and without explanation to the taxpayer abandoned its successful “Cease and Desist” rulings in Court against Oakwood Farm in which Burke-Warren charged VBH taxpayer $186,000 without BOT ever objecting too or discussing a single bill from Burke-Warren on this legal matter.
LeCompte now armed with the Schuman Letter successfully argued at the trial level before Judge Franklin Valderamma that the Schuman Letter rendered the ZBA ceae and desist order “moot” with VBH because building inspector Don Schuman (in actuality Abboud pretending he was Don Schuman) suddenly and without legal justification said LeCompte was Home Occupation compliant. It should be stated at no time during the Schuman Letter fiasco was there a call to legislate large scale commercial horse boarding by BOT, ZBA or equestrian community.
Unfortunately for LeCompte the Appellate Court on the second Appeal through Drury (because VBH BOT disappeared from the lawsuit) saw through the Schuman Letter charade politely referring to it as nothing more than a “gimmick” by VBH in order to frustrate the intent of its very own HOO. Burke-Warren wisely distanced itself from the Schuman letter in court saying the Schuman Letter was the opinion of a single building inspector and not necessarily their opinion.
When this second Appellate Court ruling came down, suddenly there was a call to action taken by the Abboud majority boards for the need to suddenly legislate commercial boarding beyond HOO. Had the Schuman Letter ruse worked tricking the Appellate Court like it had the trial court, legislating horse boarding would have never made it on the VBH docket. Of course this is all about Oakwood Farm and one would have to be absolutely devoid of all reason and logic to maintain otherwise.
Next time you read or hear former Pres. Robt. Abboud or Trustee Meroni calling out VBH BOT for not enforcing VBH ordinances ask each of them about the Schuman Letter. Specifically, ask them why they charged VBH taxpayers $186,000 in legal fees to stop commercial horse boarding on Oakwood Farm enforcing HOO and then once they were successful, not only did they abandon enforcement of this order, but went to the extent of creating a phony village letter under the name of Don Schuman? Say what you want about VBH current BOT, but at least this board did not charge VBH taxpayers $186,000 first, before deciding not to enforce a village ordinance.
I agree with Mr. Pappas concerning the need for discovery and litigation. It is time certain individuals testify under oath to his or her participation in the horse boarding charade which may come to pass as a crime when the evidence is collected. Before getting to all the ZBA members, Pres. McLaughlin and current BOT as called for by Anderson, it will be more fruitful for the attorneys to start with former Pres. Abboud, former BOT’s Messer, Meroni, Selman and Knoop and equestrians, Lundmark, Rosene, and LeCompte.
I might remind my colleague and hopefully, friend, John Pappas of the old Chinese Curse, be careful what you ask for . . . . .
New commercial horse boarding ordinance process was flawed … and potentially corrupt. An investigation would be welcomed.
During the Anderson Amendment process, public hearings were held and overwhelming majority voiced strong opposition which the special interest ZBA membership ignored.
The underlying truth is that the law was passed to support Oakwood Farms’ in a litigation process and to promote unchecked commercial boarding. To accomplish this, decades of successful Home Occupation Ordinance was destroyed. Appropriate limits on horse boarding and commercial activity are now left to the good horse sense limits of the commercial operations owner, without regard to neighbor rights which were eliminated.
Mr. Stieper states accurately that the Village opposed LeCompte’s operation and fines were accrued, but never collected, for those violations. Why were the fines accrued by Oakwood forgiven and did the Village spend $186,000 opposing Oakwood?
In the matter of 170 Old Sutton to install a polo field and indoor arena, the petitioner stated that it would not be for commercial use and only to invite some friend polo teams to practice and play. The ex-ZBA pushed this thru in record time. Sure wish the Observer could publish a photo of the dozen or so heavy duty construction vehicles changing the terrain of the property for this “non-commercial” activity.
Mr. Pappas seems to agree that an investigation is warranted. Mr. Anderson encouraged the current BOT to investigate. Well?
I believe the derrier belonging to Mr. Pappas is quite sore at the moment!
Mr. Pappas, the below is the statement that Kurt Anderson made at the September 11 ZBA meeting after public comment. You can find it on page 40 of the transcript.
10
MR. ANDERSON: I would make a motion that we
11
recommend the LeCompte proposed text amendment with
12
amendments. I have spent a great deal of time, and
13
thanks to Miss Fitch, she was very nice in outlining
14
many of the differences between the various text
15
amendments. And I have a fairly extensive amendment
16
to Mr. LeCompte’s text amendment. So I have prepared
17
a printed version of that to be passed out, and I will
18
read that into the transcript and then we can discuss
19
the proposed motion, assuming a second.
So how do we get this ordinance reversed?
So how do we get an investigation?