The Village has posted recordings from the regular September Village Board meeting. The entire meeting lasted about two and three quarter hours, with roughly half of that time spent during the finance portion of the agenda.
Two residents made public comments, and we understand the attendance was relatively sparse after the special board meeting the week prior to hear comments on settling the suit over the Commercial Horse Boarding amendment.
Most of the Finance discussion centered around the potential issuance of bonds at current favorable market rates to fully finance the Police Pension Fund, or “Police Pension Obligation Bond” to be discussed further at this evening’s Finance Committee meeting.
In theory, the interest on those bonds would be less than the rate of returns traditionally seen on the pension fund investments, thus netting a positive overall return for the Village. Unfortunately, since President McLaughlin first raised this idea nearly a year ago with the board, interest rates have risen nearly one percent, so accordingly, more critical analysis is required before a decision is made. Those planning to attend should consider listening to the recording for some background, and a queued link to that discussion can be accessed by clicking here.
The Roads & Bridges portion of the meeting included Trustee Cecola’s motion and ultimate Board approval of entering into an “Intergovernmental Agreement” with Cook County for the improvement of Brinker Road, which is not scheduled for resurfacing for the next five years by the county. This agreement would expedite the repair and resurfacing of Brinker with Federal funds available (without the need for bike lanes) in conjunction with the new Village membership in the Northwest Municipal conference. A direct link to that discussion and vote can be accessed here.
Repairs to Ridge Road by Cuba Township were also discussed and approved.
An ordinance allowing for the hiring of up to three part-time police officers was passed during the Public Safety portion of the meeting. This will allow the police chief to bring on additional staff, if needed, including recently retired VBHPD officers in the future.
A summary of the terms of the newest labor agreement with the Village police officers was provided, which was also provided in the latest newsletter. Chief Semelsberger made a point of expressing his appreciation to resident Ted Clark, who has been representing the Village in the last two labor negotiations for his assistance in the process.
The link to the menu of edited recordings from the full meeting can be accessed here.
Mike Harrington has been stalling the bond issuance to cover the police pension for about 6 months now as rates have crept up. Seems he just doesn’t want what’s good for residents if it even remotely makes McLaughlin look good for suggesting it.
There’s still too much politics going on in the board room for a small community and it’s obvious and sickening.
Harrington is connected to Abboud with an umbilical cord.
Speaker #1:
The irreconcilable conflict of interest concerning commercial horse boarding by [former] VBH BOT, Messer, Meroni and Selman did not arise alone from the secret/illegal campaign donation of $5,000 each from Oakwood Farm but rather these 3 campaign donations coupled with former VBH Pres. Abboud’s preparation of the Schuman Letter, 34 days later. Was this a “quid pro quo” or “pay to play” politics at work? If it was, this might rise to a criminal offense and possible action under the Federal RICO statute. Perhaps highly experienced VBH trial attorney John Pappas who is already prepared to take 26 depositions would like to chime in on this legal point.
As you may recall, during this 34 day period between the donation and issuance of the Schuman Letter, Dan Lundmark sent an email to LeCompte indicating what Abboud would need LeCompte to say in his affidavit in order to make Oakwood Farm home occupation compliant. Who could forget about the meeting at Barrington Hills Village Hall on President’s Day 2011, when the government office was closed to you and me, but open to Abboud, LeCompte et. al. who met outside of public view. This existence of this meeting was testified to by LeCompte under oath during the election board hearing involving his 3 illegal campaign donations to those 3 former BOT members who “once” called themselves “Save 5 Acres”.
And of course, there is the letter sent from LeCompte to Abboud asking Abboud to put the words contained in LeCompte’s pre-prepared letter on VBH Village letterhead to be signed by Abboud telling all of you and me why Oakwood Farm boarding operations is legal under village code even though, ZBA, IL. trial court and IL. Appellate Court said it was not. All Abboud had to do was cut and paste the language from LeCompte’s multi-paged letter and sign it.
Instead, Abboud opted for the less verbose and obtuse letter disquising himself as Donald Schuman stating mere change in hours of operation at Oakwood Farm made it legal under [former] HOO. Not very Jeffersonian on Abboud’s part but it did win favor with VBH Riding Club leadership and radical fringe whose support and money “Save 5 Acres” needed in a very contentious election. In fact, to my astonishment, Abboud appeared at my election event at Chessie’s and personally announced to LeCompte and all in attendance that VBH government issued a letter that very afternoon calling Oakwood Farm legal under village HOO.
You think if VBH BOT believed the contents of Schuman Letter they would have told LeCompte to change his hours of operation before spending $186,000 of VBH taxpayer money to litigate against LeCompte. [Former] BOT Ramesh and remaining VBH BOT did nothing to challenge the veracity/authenticity of the Schuman letter or investigate allegations of “pay to play” even when confronted with irrefutable facts by me. They said and did nothing and by their inaction became accomplices in the Schuman Letter fisaco by failing to take action when they had an obligation to do so in their fiduciary capacity to taxpayers and residents.
In my humble opinion, campaign donations alone are not enough to create a conflict of interest per se, but 3 secret campaign donations with an illegal letter 34 days later from former Village President Abboud pretending to be building inspector Don Schuman fixing the problem at Oakwood Farm, albeit illegally, over-turning ZBA, trial court and Appellate Court decision costing VBH taxpayers $186,000 to litigate is more than enough to create an irreconcilable conflict of interest for these 3 “Save 5 Acre BOT members who were ethically if not legally barred from participating in the horse boarding legislative process on this appearance of impropriety alone. This is reason enough for current BOT to repeal Anderson II, horse boarding amendment without delving any deeper; but there is so much more to this story.
As you may recall, it was [former] ZBA member Pfaff who agreed with me that VBH should not approve any ordinance which would in any way affect or impact the private lawsuit between Drury and LeCompte. This statement by Mr. Pfaff can be found in the ZBA transcripts and was part of the dialogue among ZBA members just prior to my defeated motion to stay legislating commercial boarding until such time as the Drury/LeCompte lawsuit was completely adjudicated. In the final analysis Mr. Pfaff and I were correct but former ZBA chairman and majority plowed ahead anyway with a single mission in mind taking us to where we find ourselves today; more litigation and continued drain of taxpayer dollars!
Given Mr. Pfaff’s prior comment as a ZBA member on this issue, I was as confused as you, Speaker #1 with his recent statement filed with VBH BOT but for different reasons. I never like to challenge a person’s motives and certainly would not do so regarding Mr. Pfaff who I respect, but given his glaring contradiction in the record I just wish Mr. Pfaff would expound on his most recent position and prior statement as ZBA member.
The obvious action by BOT is to repeal Anderson II, but the more pressing question is whether BOT will turn the entire Schuman Letter fiasco over to the Cook County States Attorney’s office for review and whether current BOT will individually sue former VBH BOT for what in the most favorable light can only be construed as gross malfeasance/nonfeasance to the financial detriment of VBH taxpayers.
For instance, why did Abboud and his “Save 5 Acre” BOT majority spend $186,000 of taxpayer money in court to close boarding operations at Oakwood Farm when in the opinion of Abboud and BOT through Schuman Letter all it took was a 45 cent (postage) letter by former VBH President pretending to be someone else in village government to keep it open by simply changing hours of operation? Hmmm. . . .
(I have asked this question along with others of former Pres. Abboud and Save 5 Acre majority BOT at many BOT meetings and in writing only to be ignored. Ultimately BOT changed the rules of public comment barring residents from asking any questions of BOT; limiting residents to only comment.) VBH BOT Gohl was there during this entire period, maybe he will provide VBH residents with an explanation of the whole Schuman letter fiasco prior to BOT vote to settle the lawsuit Personally, I would rather see all of them explain the Schuman under oath in a more formal setting but nonetheless I am anxous to hear from trustee Gohl on the matter who has all along remained “mum” on the subject.
We, the VBH taxpayer, must demand accountability from our government no matter how ugly or uncomfortible our questions may be especially when it involves abuse of taxpayer dollars or compromise of the rule of law. Otherwise, we are left with nothing but anarchy!
The proper venue for resolution can only be a court room. Let the chips fall where they may! Pay to play must be adjudicated in the proper forum.
Kilroy,
Harrington and Gohl do not want to admit that it was Abboud and Gohl and the rest of the Save 5 Acre BOT (Messer, Meroni, Selman, Ramesh) who cost taxpayers millions with prior police pension fund decisions. The need for a bond is to minimize the costs of these disastrous decisions. (BTW Bob A and Fritz G, if you have a different point of view that has value to the public, offer it in this forum)..
Supposedly, Harrington is a financial expert. If he’s opposed to this approach, does he support status quo or have an alternative. Speak up, Mr. Harrington.
Mr. Stieper,
Thank you for pressing this issue. You raise an important question of the current Board of Trustees and Village President. Why have they not forced a State’s Attorney or independent counsel review of this matter? Our residents deserve to have any alleged illegal actions exposed by proper authority and any findings of criminal abuses punished to the fullest extent of the law..
Many Village residents are also aware that the Schuman letter is not the only “smoking gun.” Misuse of Village funds appear to be evident in the matter where legal easements were destroyed in order to favor one resident supporting commercial equestrian activity over another. Despite our independent fire department advising the Village that no emergency access was available officially and in writing, police acted under the direction of Village administration (Abboud) not to protect the resident whose property was destroyed, stating it was a private matter. That situation also included a sizable campaign contribution of $30,000 to Save 5 Acres.
Yet, the prior ZBA and BOT can pass new code with a 7 year retroactive provision in order to directly favor one resident in litigation over another. That matter is the one highlighted in Mr. Stieper’s comments. The only beneficiary of a 7 year retroactive provision is Oakwood Farms. We should ask ourselves how any of us would react if Village government used their office to support a neighbor with a retroactive law is a dispute. Of course, the Village also should explain it’s reversal of position in that matter coincident with the timing of the illegally reported campaign contributions.
Ex- ZBA Chairperson, Jonathan Knight made allegations that Mr. Abboud and, then ZBA liaison, Trustee Joseph Messer, tampered with the process in both of these matters. One ZBA member (Benkendorf) voted to support the variance despite admitting under oath that test for variance was not met.
These are serious matters. We should not fear that the swings of an election will allow favoritism of special interests for personal or financial gain. We must all know with confidence that our elected and appointed officials will carry out their obligations without special interest influence.
Enough evidence appears to exist that an investigation is warranted.
Jack R:
Not only was there a $30,000 campaign donation to Save 5 Acres in two installments of $15,000 each, but VBH taxpayers were charged during this same time of period more than $10,000 by GW Hamilton at the direction of Abboud to peform an engineering study and survey of this very “Save 5 Acre” Donor’s property.
When I FOIA’d this information from VBH in 2012 during Abboud’s tenure, I was informed by Village Administrator that from time to time VBH government does engineering and surveying on select VBH private properties as part of a “mapping program” for google maps.
When I issued a subsequent FOIA Request asking the village to identify other VBH properties where either engineering and/or survey was done on any VBH private property at the expense of VBH taxpayers, Village Administrator answered, “None”. This mapping program was very “selective” to the tune of one property who coincidentally was the largest campaign donor to “Save 5 Acres”.
Jack R, your analysis is “spot on” but perhaps you were unaware of this part of the story. A government which goes unchecked by its citizens is to be feared. Too long we were governed by tyrants and cheats!
Common logic dictates that the ZBA under Freeman as Chair and Trustee Messer as BOT advocate acted to support one landowner, LeCompte, over another, Drury, in the Text Amendment process. If not, then why the 7 year ex post facto (retroactive) portion of the code change? In order to write a law specific for one landowner, serious negative repercussions such as abandonment of Home Occupation protections and new limits of 10 commercially boarded horses on a 5 acre property were added.
Though the source below from Wikipedia is more of a non-legal view, the basis of fact supports our United States Constitution’s disdain for ex post facto laws.
“In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. This is one of the relatively few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments…”