[0:10] this will just ski
[0:12] yeah it's Hodge dr. day key mr. Blanchet
[0:18] you're mr. coy judge Wendell min yeah we
[0:24] have a qualm and thank you very much
[0:27] according to our agenda the first item
[0:31] is public comment we have no public or
[0:36] no comment okay second item is approval
[0:41] of the minutes and and they were sent
[0:48] out everyone had a copy as anyone has
[0:50] comment on it
[0:52] mr. coy one correction under six the
[1:00] last paragraph says mr. Kouri enquired
[1:03] about the confidentially complaints I
[1:05] believe that was dr. day he said when I
[1:08] looked at the video yeah okay anyone
[1:19] else have any comment on the minutes
[1:22] solution yeah we have a motion to
[1:26] approve motion to approve the minutes in
[1:28] a second all right we have a motion and
[1:34] a second and so we'll have a vote all
[1:36] those in favor say aye aye opposed nay
[1:40] no opposition okay so they're approved
[1:46] all right now are you ready
[1:53] these will ever be oh good I'm glad to
[1:55] hear that we need to note one other
[1:57] appearance
[2:00] yes dr. Drake II just note this came in
[2:03] and now where you will have a report on
[2:08] complaints file from our legal brain
[2:16] judge ones no I'm just an advisor in
[2:18] that I know but you got a brain there
[2:23] was a complaint that is that was filed
[2:25] and I think it maybe be helpful if I
[2:31] kind of try to go through the chronology
[2:32] of some of these I guess we were last
[2:37] together back in October and I think
[2:41] that's when the or no December I guess
[2:43] disapproved a meeting then in January on
[2:48] January 11th I received from the from
[2:51] Diane the fact that a complaint had been
[2:54] received into their office the day
[2:57] before so I came in and picked it up
[3:00] and I acknowledge receipt of the
[3:07] complaint by phone to the complaint on
[3:11] the same date actually talked to the
[3:15] person and and at that time she advised
[3:18] that she might be withdrawing the
[3:23] complaint because she said she had in
[3:26] her mind as to without there was
[3:27] jurisdiction issues whether or not that
[3:30] was appropriate as far as being filed
[3:32] with the Commission here excuse me she
[3:37] also advised us to repair in a more
[3:39] detailed statement which did
[3:43] subsequently come in I advised her that
[3:47] I had commitments for the rest of the
[3:48] week at that time would not be able to
[3:49] get into the actual work on the
[3:52] complaint until the following week on
[3:55] the 19th I received an email stating she
[3:58] was withdrawing the complaint which I
[4:03] acknowledge so at that point in time I
[4:05] felt the matter was was done there was
[4:07] no further action on my part and it
[4:09] really had not done any type of
[4:13] other than reading through it a couple
[4:15] of times hadn't really done any type of
[4:17] work on it then on February 1st I
[4:28] received by email a copy of a
[4:30] whistleblower complaint which is another
[4:37] section that's at the end of the
[4:40] government ethics see if I can make
[4:43] reference to it real quick here what are we calling the first thing that
[4:47] was the first thing was a weather was an
[4:49] ethics complaint okay
[4:52] the second item filed in February was a
[4:55] whistleblower complaint which I think my
[4:58] recollection is it came by way of the
[5:01] auditor's office first I think it was
[5:03] filed with him with carbon copies sent
[5:05] to carbon copies extra emails being sent
[5:11] to you and I'll have to explain that to
[5:15] myself and I don't know the other
[5:20] individuals but by means of the email a
[5:23] copy of being sent to me I acknowledge
[5:25] receipt of that at that point in time
[5:29] clear back when all this began as I had
[5:32] advised the Chairman and the state's
[5:37] attorney's office and people here I gave
[5:41] up my license so I am not in a position
[5:43] to give legal advice I will not go into
[5:47] that type of process whatsoever
[5:52] so when due to the nature of the
[5:57] allegations in the complaint I advised
[6:00] the Chairman wheeler and also I think I
[6:08] had a conversation with mr.
[6:11] Quinn advised him that I felt is
[6:13] necessary that we have outside
[6:14] independent legal counsel why did it
[6:17] come from did you say the recorders
[6:19] office auditor's office auditors are
[6:21] right why did it come from the otter ah
[6:22] there's honor the let me get back to the
[6:28] provision when there's a whistleblower
[6:32] complaint again this is section and
[6:41] division seven section two dash two
[6:43] eight six whenever any officer employee
[6:46] of Kankakee County reason believes
[6:47] evidence exists that another officer
[6:48] employee has perpetuated gross
[6:51] mismanagement gross misuse or waste of
[6:54] public resources or funds abuse of
[6:57] authority in connection with
[6:58] administration of public program etc etc
[7:01] shall bring the evidence to the
[7:03] immediate attention of the state's
[7:04] eternity the auditor or the employees
[7:07] department head so that's how come it
[7:11] went that way and there's some things
[7:15] that you know discussion as to ordinance
[7:18] revisions which is the next matter and
[7:20] that which I'll get into that have come
[7:29] to light because of this this
[7:32] whistleblower complaint but nevertheless
[7:34] back to the fact that it came from the
[7:37] auditor's office that I contacted the
[7:40] Chairman's office again outside legal
[7:45] counsel was procured from the appellate
[7:49] process prosecutor's office which is
[7:51] standard process if a state's attorney's
[7:54] office cannot handle it and through the
[7:59] course of working with the this attorney
[8:02] the two determination was made that
[8:08] there was no jurisdiction
[8:14] for us to be able to consider this
[8:18] whistleblower complaint
[8:20] the reason being at the time that the
[8:23] whistleblower complaint was filed the
[8:26] individual was not an employee of the
[8:28] county was not was not an employee of
[8:31] the county and again if you look at the
[8:33] first sentence of 2 - 2 86 when any
[8:43] officer or employee of Kankakee County
[8:45] reasonably believes that they can
[8:49] basically file this type of an action
[8:57] purpose I believe over all of the
[9:01] whistleblower protection is so employees
[9:05] of a governmental entity do not have to
[9:08] be fearful of losing their job if they
[9:12] file these type of complaints so again
[9:15] that's that's the protection that's
[9:16] afforded out there again this individual
[9:19] is or at the time of the filing of the
[9:23] whistleblower complaint was no longer an
[9:24] employee at the county I don't really
[9:31] know the complete details of it and that
[9:34] I know that the person was discharged I
[9:37] don't know how agreeable was I you know
[9:40] based on what's contained and some of it
[9:43] there was some disagreement in the
[9:46] complaints with the different things
[9:47] that have been found there was some
[9:52] difficulty that was occur between the
[9:55] department head and the employee and
[10:01] again because of the fact that I'm
[10:05] approaching this at the current time as
[10:08] I would any other time that a complaint
[10:12] is filed I'm not going to be bringing
[10:15] out names even though the gentleman
[10:18] sitting over here is full aware of who
[10:21] the names are and everything I'm still
[10:23] going to approach it from the
[10:24] perspective that
[10:25] I don't think it's proper for me to
[10:28] discuss the individuals name out in the
[10:32] general public however I will put out
[10:34] that the individual involved was an
[10:38] employee of the state's attorney's
[10:39] office that is why I felt that it was
[10:42] necessary that outside independent
[10:45] counsel be procured for two different I
[10:50] you know I I wanted this group to be
[10:53] able to say we had no impact or
[10:59] influence from within the office and I
[11:03] felt it was advisable for the state's
[11:05] attorney's office
[11:06] that they not be involved because it
[11:10] removed them from being subject to an
[11:12] argument that you know they weren't
[11:15] shooting straight I just felt that it
[11:17] was necessary that independent counsel
[11:19] be appointed and ultimately chairman
[11:23] wheeler agreed with that also so we are
[11:31] now at a stage where I'm in the
[11:37] ordinance we're supposed to give notice
[11:38] well let me let me step back again in
[11:40] that I sent a copy of the legal opinion
[11:43] out to the complaint I got an email back
[11:47] and basically advised the complainant
[11:50] that in all fairness to them I and the
[11:55] gist of the decision or the opinion from
[11:58] the outside legal adviser was that due
[12:01] to the fact that this person was no
[12:03] longer employee and employee they were
[12:07] not protected by the whistleblower
[12:11] ordinance again I'm not gonna give out
[12:17] legal advice that's not my capacity here
[12:21] even though it talks about advisor
[12:22] that's another thing I want to talk
[12:23] about as far as the name of this I'm
[12:28] supposed to investigate as to whether or
[12:30] not there's a basis to bring an action
[12:33] in front of the
[12:36] ethics commission I advise the
[12:40] complainin that this was the opinion
[12:45] that was given by the outside legal
[12:49] counsel the response I got was I
[12:51] expected as much and in the letter I had
[12:55] said I was going to give this person 28
[12:58] days to file a response if they were a
[13:01] disagreement as to that legal
[13:03] determination the response again I got
[13:07] back was that's what I expected I didn't
[13:11] know how to take that was I to take that
[13:14] as being I expected they were going to
[13:19] find a way not to deal with it or I
[13:24] expected that was going to be the result
[13:26] because that's what my own that's what
[13:28] this person's own independent legal
[13:30] investigation had determined so I let it
[13:35] run the 28 days and right about the time
[13:38] 28 days was running then I started
[13:41] trying to get a hold of Toby so I could
[13:43] come and report to the Commission in
[13:45] this fashion as to what was occurring
[13:48] because again you know there wasn't any
[13:51] obligation to let the members of the
[13:53] body know anything until we knew where
[13:55] we were at with the investigation
[14:00] unfortunately our ability to communicate
[14:03] we were having difficulties until I
[14:05] tried the old-fashioned thing of call
[14:06] nor house phone well again the the
[14:17] initial complaint that was withdrawn was
[14:23] filed January 11th the whistleblower
[14:30] complaint was filed February 1st
[14:35] so some of the delay was Andy Guinness
[14:38] is I guess this is kind of a learning
[14:40] experience again causing us to want to
[14:44] discuss things not only amongst this
[14:47] body but also after this group has had
[14:52] an opportunity to discuss it but also to
[14:54] discuss it with the chairman and others
[14:58] at the county board a process to where
[15:03] we can expedite it as far as getting the
[15:06] outside legal counsel if it's necessary
[15:09] because you know this initially was
[15:11] phone calls to chairman wheeler and then
[15:22] the process of getting somebody who
[15:24] retained that it all took some some time
[15:26] of that and and I guess I I need to note
[15:33] the fact that there were some other
[15:38] allegations contained in this complaint
[15:42] that also were directed toward the
[15:45] chairman so it was even difficult having
[15:50] that kind of conversation County George
[15:52] chairman of County Board Chairman yeah
[15:53] not yourself thank you sorry did leave
[15:57] that open-ended yes there were some
[15:59] allegations contained in the complaint
[16:02] and the whistleblower action that were
[16:07] directed toward chairman wheeler again
[16:12] another reason why I felt that it just
[16:14] should have been completely outside the
[16:18] state's attorney's office as far as the
[16:20] assistance the legal assistance that was
[16:23] given but again even that made it
[16:25] difficult for me having to have that
[16:27] conversation with him and since he's a
[16:29] subject matter of what contained in the
[16:31] complaint so as it's something that we
[16:34] need to maybe discuss as to how can we
[16:38] create a process to where outside legal
[16:44] assistance can be procured in those type
[16:47] of touchy situations hey you know quite
[16:51] admittedly the the ordinance of that
[16:54] we're dealing with I know when we were
[16:56] looking at the ordinance when it was
[16:58] being drafted the complaint was involved
[17:01] with the drafting of the ordinance so I
[17:10] the person is fully aware as far as what
[17:12] the contents are but I think at this
[17:15] point in time based on the
[17:17] recommendation from there and the
[17:21] research from the attorney I feel that
[17:26] the fact first of all that she the
[17:28] person would through the complaint and
[17:29] then secondly based on the analysis and
[17:34] legal opinion of the outside attorney
[17:39] stating that we don't have jurisdiction
[17:43] it's my determination that there my
[17:45] recommendation I'm sorry that notice
[17:49] should be sent to the person saying
[17:51] specification is closed no further
[17:53] action is going to be taken well I think
[17:56] mr. wounds woman you did exceptional
[18:00] work on this it was a difficult
[18:03] complaint to start with and the outside
[18:08] legal advice was very good and what I
[18:14] think in our case in our responsibility
[18:18] would be if there was any question about
[18:20] this to continue on but there doesn't
[18:23] seem to be any question about the
[18:26] validity of the resolutions that were
[18:31] drawn you know yeah well
[18:38] here's the next sticky wicket did okay
[18:42] I'm sorry
[18:42] can't get comfortable it's ticking Ricky
[18:45] that wicked that came in yesterday
[18:47] afternoon of course I didn't see it
[18:49] until about 7:30 8 o'clock last night
[18:54] when I finally sat in front of the
[18:55] computer the complaint advised that that
[19:04] they had learned from a reporter at The
[19:05] Daily Journal that the county does not
[19:08] believe the ethics complaint I file were
[19:11] closed I guess it's a learning
[19:12] experience for everyone to that end when
[19:15] the committee does closed the complaints
[19:16] due to the lack of jurisdiction I want
[19:18] to exercise my right under the ordinance
[19:19] to have the ethics advisory refer the
[19:21] complaints to the appropriate agency I
[19:23] don't know that that would be the US
[19:24] Attorney for the Central District of
[19:25] Illinois because of the alleged misuse
[19:30] of public funds by state official or to
[19:34] the Attorney General or the office of
[19:35] the executive inspector general or all
[19:39] three to determine the jurisdiction but
[19:41] I wanted to give you the heads-up that I
[19:42] will not be requesting them so again
[19:50] here's where we're at
[19:51] you have an individual that files
[19:54] complaint would you the complaint you
[19:57] didn't have an individual that files a
[20:02] whistleblower complaint but we don't
[20:08] have any jurisdiction on it are we then
[20:14] obligated or is the Commission obligated
[20:16] to send that on someplace else
[20:20] well she feels that that word should go
[20:24] why does she now do that I guess there
[20:27] is a provision under the ordinance that
[20:28] you know suggest that if the
[20:32] determination is made that we don't have
[20:34] authority then I should refer to this
[20:37] agency here's the difficulty again it
[20:41] puts me in this position I first of all
[20:43] would have to do all the investigation
[20:45] to make a legal determination that there
[20:48] is a basis for
[20:50] complaint to be filed against you know
[20:52] with another entity again something else
[20:56] I think we need to look at as to the
[21:01] contents of the ordinance what would we
[21:03] be obliged to to make that determination
[21:05] I mean if she is of the complaintant and
[21:08] they're saying that this is where it
[21:10] should go then we I think our only
[21:13] decision is do we put it in an envelope
[21:17] and send it to them or do we tell her to
[21:20] do it
[21:21] what no yeah but I know you don't want
[21:25] to spend the time or have the feeling
[21:30] that you can be responsible for that
[21:32] kind of illegal investigation I don't
[21:39] have the wherewithal whether it be
[21:45] licensed legal research tools etc and I
[21:51] guess quite frankly the time that's
[21:54] right and is the first complaint that
[21:56] she withdrew that's sort of a moot
[22:01] question because she did not refile it
[22:05] right the contents of what were in there
[22:10] most of what was in there was also
[22:13] contained within the whistleblower so
[22:16] she sort of did refile right III guess
[22:26] my thoughts on it is if there would be
[22:31] an obligation on our part to take
[22:32] further action with it then any time let
[22:40] me let me start over again
[22:45] if a person files a complaint and it's
[22:55] rejected and let's say there's no basis
[23:00] to it whatsoever but then that person
[23:04] contacting you say I want this referred
[23:06] to the appropriate agency that then
[23:08] places us each time to have to research
[23:11] everything and I don't understand why we
[23:15] would have to research it well it's if
[23:19] it needs to go to another agency they
[23:21] need to do these well that's the problem
[23:23] that the our ordinance right now and I
[23:28] basically suggest that we should refer
[23:32] if we make the determination that there
[23:35] is a legitimate complaint yeah a basis
[23:40] for some type of further action that
[23:41] should be taken by someone and again
[23:48] that's something we're going to have to
[23:50] look at in that and when we redress it
[23:53] in that but right now I have no
[24:02] documentation from outside legal counsel
[24:05] that says that there was any basis to
[24:08] the allegation of the complaint
[24:11] therefore I have you know even if if
[24:15] there is just again the decision to us
[24:19] was based upon jurisdiction you know
[24:22] that we just don't have jurisdiction
[24:23] therefore we can't proceed the outside
[24:29] little council was not requested to
[24:34] research
[24:40] whether or not there is any validity or
[24:43] not
[24:44] to the allegations of the whistleblower
[24:47] complaint therefore we don't have any
[24:50] basis you know I don't have anything to
[24:52] convey to you that suggests that there
[24:55] is some viability or there's some
[24:58] validity to this complaint I don't have
[25:00] anything at all like that to suggest one
[25:02] way or the other that basically says you
[25:05] know I think there's something there or
[25:08] I can't say I don't think there's
[25:10] something there but I don't have
[25:11] anything at all to basically give to you
[25:14] to make a determination of referral and
[25:16] basically if I remember correctly all it
[25:19] is in the complaint is this listing of
[25:26] possible problems correct and did they
[25:30] not have if I remember correctly did she
[25:33] now have some contact with another
[25:35] agency that would be County Department
[25:39] that would be involved in that
[25:41] well the whistleblower complaint was
[25:46] filed in the auditor's office if there's
[25:48] a misappropriation of funds that is
[25:50] taking place then presumably that would
[25:53] be something the auditor would be
[25:55] looking at well that's what I'm saying
[25:56] ma'am if they've already seen it maybe
[26:02] they need to discuss that with us oh
[26:07] okay well but we don't seem to have a
[26:10] jurisdiction anyway because she's not an
[26:12] employee correct
[26:16] so I guess my perspective at this point
[26:20] in time is that a communication would be
[26:25] sent to her advising her that you know
[26:33] because of the lack of jurisdiction no
[26:36] further action be taken and that we have
[26:46] nothing to base referral to another
[26:47] agency
[26:52] why did we think there's a Mary or can
[26:55] it be it so we're just passing it on
[26:59] without an opinion or if we passed on
[27:04] we're wasting people's time I think
[27:06] there is not and again I I think that's
[27:13] the the difficulty that could arise is
[27:17] if every time a complaint is received
[27:23] and we're asked to pass upon to another
[27:27] entity these are not some type of
[27:34] requirement that we have a basis or a
[27:41] reason why we're referring it to this
[27:43] other entity which would require this
[27:46] legal delving then you know you're not
[27:49] interested in doing or probably legal to
[27:53] do I don't know if any of it that I did
[28:00] right now would be for my own personal
[28:01] curiosity in in that that you know I
[28:05] write I would pass it on to anyone else
[28:08] and that well if I just it seemed that
[28:12] also there's some area of choosing in
[28:17] this particular thing as to what was to
[28:21] be done with the funds you know yeah I
[28:26] and again that's that's a whole issue
[28:28] that I'm not personally wearing that but
[28:37] you know you hear things through the the
[28:39] grapevine that you know there has been
[28:40] maybe some discussions that have taken
[28:42] place about these things in the past and
[28:44] that but oh right right
[28:46] she did say them you know I
[28:54] from my prior years from sitting up
[28:57] where you're sitting at the current time
[28:59] in the seven years on this board I know
[29:02] there are certain parameters about how
[29:04] different funds can be used and you know
[29:15] dick Winkle who was the auditor at that
[29:17] time that you know was very you know
[29:21] every TIA to be crossed every I had to
[29:24] be not a net cetera et cetera than that
[29:25] I don't know where things are I mean
[29:29] that's well five to thirty years ago so
[29:33] I I don't know you know things change as
[29:36] far as the rules the regulations case
[29:39] law that may be interpreted things that
[29:41] succumb I'm not in a position to say
[29:44] yeah I think there's something here or
[29:46] there isn't because I haven't researched
[29:48] or looked at it and again I'm not in
[29:51] that position to give that type of
[29:53] recommendation to this this group well
[29:57] and that's also saying that we don't
[29:59] know as you are saying exactly how
[30:02] discretionary funds can be used and well
[30:09] and again as to the question of referral
[30:11] and just trying to look at the overall
[30:16] picture as to how to proceed in the
[30:18] future do we want to be in a position or
[30:23] does this Commission want to be in a
[30:25] position where somebody can raise an
[30:27] allegation however general or how
[30:34] specific but with no maybe no legal
[30:42] authority specifically cited but if
[30:46] there is legal authority cited this
[30:50] Commission doesn't know one way or the
[30:52] other without legal counsel is there
[30:56] some ability to that
[30:58] it leads me back to the situation where
[31:03] the Commission I think whenever there
[31:07] are complaints that are filed are going
[31:09] to need the assistance of legal counsel
[31:11] at times which under the ordinance is
[31:13] normally going to be the state's
[31:15] attorney's office right this situation
[31:17] is because of the parties involved
[31:20] created the dilemma to where the state's
[31:23] attorney's office really couldn't be
[31:25] directly involved right
[31:27] and again it's food for thought of
[31:29] something we need to address in the
[31:31] future on we have to consider if we need
[31:33] to hire and it would be probably on a
[31:36] hiring basis legal advice that could
[31:41] become an expensive thing I mean five
[31:47] dollars an hour or something at least
[31:49] you know I guess I could say you get
[31:54] what you pay for
[31:55] yeah Lenny SEC said that often now we
[32:00] are typing or so are dating ourselves is
[32:10] that what we're trying to avoid we think
[32:17] it's unnecessary we did it in this case
[32:19] then anybody in the future would expect
[32:22] the same well that's part of it but I I
[32:26] guess I'm thinking from your perspective
[32:30] do you want to be perceived as an entity
[32:34] that willy nilly hands things off
[32:39] without really having a basis for you
[32:42] know dude when if you're going to be
[32:44] sending in a letter to the Attorney
[32:47] General or a federal prosecutor do you
[32:52] want to get in a
[32:56] be perceived as somebody that just
[32:59] constantly is sending stuff that you
[33:01] know they're gonna to almost every time
[33:04] that it comes into their office or do
[33:06] you want to be perceived as it entity
[33:09] that if they've taken the time to send
[33:11] this to me is something that we need to
[33:14] look at but that also says that as the
[33:18] complaints come in you do make a
[33:21] judgment about whether or not you should
[33:22] proceed in investigating you know and I
[33:26] would have a tendency to think that it
[33:29] would be more often than that something
[33:33] that you could ask the state's
[33:34] attorney's office to do because it would
[33:37] not be involved
[33:41] normal scheme of things the way I
[33:46] perceive how we all operate together is
[33:49] the complaint is received I receive that
[33:52] I investigate it I you know it's
[33:55] different than doing legal research on
[33:58] it if there's issues that arise during
[34:01] the course of my investigation then I
[34:03] would contact the state's attorney's
[34:04] office and say this is something I need
[34:07] some guidance on as to I think as a
[34:10] legal issue not an investigative issue
[34:15] then once all that is compiled together
[34:19] then through the looking at the
[34:21] ordinance it's a question of sending it
[34:25] to or presenting it to this body my
[34:29] recommendation as to whether or not you
[34:31] should proceed or not proceed one of the
[34:34] words that they use in the our little
[34:39] law is gross you know so now do we say
[34:43] well if you're a whistleblower and
[34:45] you're saying that some officer in the
[34:49] county spent a hundred dollars in an
[34:56] area to think it was proper is that
[34:59] gross or do we say we would look at it
[35:03] if it was going to be forty thousand
[35:05] dollars or it was going to be a hundred
[35:06] thousand you know I think maybe that's
[35:08] something we should just
[35:12] and it's two changes in it to be more
[35:15] specific which might help right and once
[35:23] we get by this you know again the next
[35:27] item on the agenda is discussion as far
[35:29] as potential changes which quite
[35:34] honestly we're going to need the state's
[35:38] attorney's office to be evolved with him
[35:40] but I guess you know and I kind of
[35:42] anticipated they might have been here
[35:43] but then again once I saw they weren't
[35:45] here I probably understand why they
[35:47] aren't here it's you know they probably
[35:49] wanted to keep that hands-off approach
[35:51] but yeah I understand but eventually you
[35:57] know today yet I still want to go
[35:58] through areas that I feel that things
[36:01] need to be addressed and we may have to
[36:02] set up another meeting where then the
[36:04] state's attorney can come in they have
[36:07] the discussion with us and how many
[36:09] ordinance revisions do you really think
[36:11] there needs to be or do they need to be
[36:13] a general classification a definition is
[36:18] to you know whistleblower on a money
[36:22] basis what are we talking about well
[36:25] yeah I mean if we could maybe see that -
[36:27] the next one yeah I guess if to the next
[36:30] you know what I like to do is just see
[36:33] what the Commission's thoughts are or if
[36:35] you want to take formal action on it as
[36:41] far as well my personal opinion is that
[36:44] since we've been invited by outside
[36:46] legal a lawyer you know who seems seem
[36:52] to know what he was doing and whatnot
[36:54] that this particular complaint is that
[37:01] germane for us because it was made by
[37:05] somebody who is not employed and that
[37:07] seems to for us end the situation the
[37:11] question just becomes then do we send it
[37:13] on right right
[37:16] would have the right to do it on their
[37:18] own right they could say we definitely
[37:21] and this person is knowledgeable and
[37:24] long yeah well I would well I think you
[37:34] probably need to address two things is
[37:35] one make a determination as to whether
[37:38] or not any further action should be
[37:41] taken on the complaint that's one aspect
[37:44] of it and the other aspect of it is
[37:46] there going to be referral to any other
[37:48] entity let's address that first issue if
[37:53] you want to make a motion determining
[37:58] whether or not we should do any further
[38:00] work on that particular complaint wait
[38:07] for their work especially given the fact
[38:11] that there's been competent outside
[38:13] legal advice is there a second to that
[38:23] we need the second before we have a
[38:26] discussion yeah Mike was this person a
[38:35] former employee or no well first of all
[38:38] I guess you you want a second we do we
[38:41] need a second before we can do that I'll
[38:43] second the motion came the question the
[38:47] question was was this person a former
[38:51] employee or never an employee former employee all right any
[39:03] more discussion questions does everyone
[39:07] understand the motion that we would end
[39:11] our action on this complaint based on
[39:16] the fact that we do not have
[39:18] jurisdiction as given that information
[39:22] given to us by competent legal
[39:26] all those in favor say aye all opposed nay
[39:34] okay the eyes have it so we will be done
[39:38] handling this unless it comes back in
[39:41] our dreams right now the second issue as
[40:08] to whether or not we should refer this
[40:11] complaint to another office as was
[40:17] suggested by the complaint
[40:21] anyone got any we would need a motion to
[40:31] - not - if you want it that way or if
[40:35] you if your motion is to not then you
[40:38] have to vote yes I'll make a motion that
[40:43] we do not refer this on to an additional
[40:47] agency is there a second second
[40:53] mr. coy that we do not refer this
[40:59] complaint to any other agency any
[41:04] questions discussion all those in favor
[41:11] of this ordinance motion motion aye aye
[41:19] any opposition
[41:23] all right the according to our vote with
[41:28] them we will not send this particular
[41:31] complaint on to any other agency at this
[41:34] point in time well and I guess I'll
[41:39] state openly I will convey this to the
[41:43] complainant by email this is the other
[41:48] difficulty with through all the years
[41:50] I've always had either a secretary or a
[41:54] clerk working with me yeah I the person
[42:01] has responded in that fashion and
[42:04] acknowledge receipt of things in that
[42:05] fashion so I will advise the individual
[42:08] in that fashion but again with that
[42:14] being done as we segue into the next
[42:16] item on the agenda if we can I'm gonna
[42:20] need some assistance probably a time
[42:24] probably for communication as you stand
[42:26] there and then maybe I don't know that
[42:28] maybe somebody in administrative office
[42:32] or state's attorney's office or wherever
[42:35] that that well the next item on the
[42:39] agenda is the discussion as to ordinance
[42:42] revisions so let me go through some of
[42:51] the things that I found as a result of
[42:53] this well things I guess maybe we need
[42:57] to note and then maybe my suggestion
[43:02] would be is to set up a meeting and
[43:04] maybe they could be conveyed over to the
[43:06] state's attorney's office on the issue
[43:09] of ordinance revisions and then maybe
[43:13] subsequently set up in a meeting to
[43:17] discuss them further but at least give
[43:19] whoever would it be assigned this task
[43:22] the opportunity to to look at them a
[43:24] little bit I think that's right too and
[43:25] I think that we can as individuals look
[43:31] at the ordinance and see things that we
[43:33] meet now after having been through this
[43:35] process
[43:36] might understand why we might need
[43:39] changes well here's the first if you
[43:49] look at it you know you have Division
[43:52] one definitions then you go into
[43:57] division - you have prohibited political
[44:00] activities and all the sub parts and
[44:03] then you have Division three gift ban
[44:06] and several different sub parts mm-hmm
[44:13] what else is there there's nothing else
[44:16] that we really you know it's basically
[44:20] apparently the way it's drafted now to
[44:24] monitor political activity of
[44:26] individuals that are members of the
[44:29] county employee well what is is there a
[44:32] Bamm county employees taking part in
[44:36] political activities it's just basically
[44:38] during compensated time and things of
[44:41] that right so I mean there are a lot of
[44:44] specifics about it here and they're
[44:49] specific as far as gifts there's some
[44:54] specifics about you know so what I'm
[45:00] sayin you know women complaining about
[45:02] being treated poorly and no well I mean
[45:06] sexual harassment I there's not a
[45:08] session on that there's not so well
[45:11] nobody ever did that in the county well
[45:14] I guess volunteering which one is Fiji
[45:23] okay the county the county does have an
[45:28] adopted sexual harassment policy and
[45:30] it's outside of this process because it
[45:32] becomes a human resource issue so they
[45:36] make the complaints and so again I'm not
[45:38] saying you don't want to address it I'm
[45:39] just letting you know that that's we do
[45:41] have something on file and adopted
[45:44] it was just had to be redone because of
[45:47] the state law changing so we chose
[45:49] account II has a process for somebody
[45:52] yes - where do they go to file that they
[45:56] go to human resources and then if the HR
[45:59] is not available they file it through
[46:01] the Chairman's office and then I
[46:02] disperse that to Human Resources and to
[46:04] the state's attorney very good thank you
[46:08] mr. chairman wheeler but again the the
[46:12] issue is right now as I look at this
[46:14] ordinance there's only two things
[46:16] specifically contained in it there was
[46:18] to deal with right which is again
[46:23] allegations of political activity by
[46:25] employees you know worst case scenario
[46:28] during time of employment or during work
[46:33] the other thing is a question of gifts
[46:36] that receipt you know some of us working
[46:41] in a department receiving monetary
[46:46] entitlements what about this particular
[46:49] allegation of misspending of money how
[46:52] does that well that would be in the
[46:53] whistleblower but okay looking through
[46:56] this ordinance at the current time I
[46:59] don't see anything that specifically
[47:01] puts it under the auspices of the Ethics
[47:05] Commission so that's another issue out
[47:10] there that again you know you have the
[47:13] one section of the ordinance that talks
[47:14] about those two specific things then you
[47:16] have an ordinance whistle blower
[47:18] ordinance but it doesn't say
[47:20] specifically that it shows who the
[47:23] report is to be filed with but again let
[47:27] me go back
[47:40] yeah it talked about being filed with
[47:42] these other individuals like the auditor
[47:47] and right the auditor to do okay well it
[47:56] says all officers employees should be
[47:58] obligated cooperate during the course of
[47:59] an investigation and comply with the
[48:00] request for information from the Ethics
[48:03] Commission and state's attorney I guess
[48:06] it kind of suggests that it's in our
[48:08] bailiwick but it doesn't say
[48:09] specifically that all complaints should
[48:11] go you know should follow the processes
[48:14] of the Ethics Commission ordinance and
[48:19] you know maybe it's just some language
[48:21] like that may specifically put it there
[48:29] well I think the other item Mattoon like
[48:32] you said about the assistance to you
[48:37] again if there's neccessity of
[48:40] independent legal counsel and as far as
[48:43] communications that may need to be sent
[48:46] by the ethics adviser which is I say
[48:55] that again advisor and I I sent this out
[48:59] way back when we started working on this
[49:01] that I had difficulty with the
[49:06] designation as advisor because again
[49:08] that suggests that I'm going to be
[49:14] advising as far as legal issues in that
[49:16] I guess we call you well I you know I
[49:20] don't feel like I put an administrator
[49:22] investigator office I actually officer
[49:26] you know ethics officer you know
[49:30] something otherwise something that they
[49:32] said I thought in one of maybe the first
[49:36] copy of the Ethics Commission
[49:39] where
[49:42] there is the plaintiff file - we've got
[49:48] an answer okay the the original ethics
[49:55] ordinances was drafted as you heard by
[49:57] the person who filed the first complaint
[49:59] was it said the state's attorney is the
[50:03] ethics adviser okay I asked to have that
[50:06] changed because what if it was somebody
[50:08] in the state's attorney's office had
[50:10] filed the complaint it was provided back
[50:13] to the individual who wrote the the
[50:15] ordinance and they changed it well we
[50:19] have since realized that the state's
[50:21] attorney is not an employee of the
[50:22] county and only ethics violations
[50:24] against the state's attorney can be made
[50:26] to the courts in Springfield and I may
[50:31] be a little bit off on the specifics but
[50:33] it has to be made with the other ethics
[50:35] okay because they're not employee of the
[50:37] county hence we're in this weird spot
[50:39] right now and I think that's what
[50:42] McCants talking about here and so when
[50:45] we talk about ethics advisor
[50:47] nine times out of ten and I hope never
[50:49] again do we have to go through this but
[50:51] if we do and involves the state's
[50:53] attorney's office and requires an
[50:55] outside counsel so I just want to
[50:58] provide that how this all came about
[51:00] because when we wanted to do this and do
[51:01] the whistleblower and put it through the
[51:03] county board it was the intent and
[51:04] removing me and the state's attorney
[51:06] from having anything to do with this
[51:08] process but what we didn't realize and
[51:10] we weren't advised by the individual who
[51:12] wrote this was is that the state's
[51:14] attorney is not subject to this ethics
[51:17] complaint process here on the local
[51:20] level only to what happens in
[51:21] Springfield and I hope that makes sense
[51:23] the way that I say that so another thing
[51:33] that's contained in the ordinance at the
[51:35] current time and I just recently
[51:42] pass this on to mr. Quinn in the state's
[51:48] attorney's office is all of those that
[51:53] have served on a public body before
[51:54] remember the nun statement that used to
[51:58] file you know none there every answer
[52:01] was no nun finance statement of economic
[52:04] interests very okay the ordinance is
[52:08] drafted at the current time says that
[52:11] I'm supposed to review those hmm
[52:14] I haven't seen one yet I believe they're
[52:16] due May 1st and believe me I'm not
[52:22] looking forward to sitting there I I
[52:25] don't know where they're going at the
[52:26] current time where they've been filed
[52:28] previously okay and see right now it
[52:32] says I'm supposed to be looking at those
[52:34] I don't know if it's necessary I don't
[52:37] know how many of you get but again I
[52:42] think that's something that we need to
[52:43] before apply any other answers the nun
[52:45] yeah yeah so that's one thing is in the
[52:51] ordinance of the current check out the
[52:52] name you like the best
[53:01] well I guess if if I'm gonna continue
[53:04] looking at the nun statements and do the
[53:07] investigation then maybe it should be
[53:08] administrator there's kind of an
[53:10] administrative type of capacity if this
[53:14] if those things are gonna go by the
[53:16] wayside someplace else and all and it's
[53:19] gonna be more of Investigation then
[53:21] maybe it's a six investigator I worry
[53:24] about it the title investigator in terms
[53:27] of your feelings about you know the law
[53:31] license and all that you know but if you
[53:34] like being an investigator I've never
[53:37] been sworn in with them had a badge or
[53:39] anything either of them so I mean an
[53:40] administrators fine with me in that or
[53:42] something of that nature
[53:46] okay which kind of makes sense
[53:51] ethics Commission administrator because
[53:56] you're going to make the decision as to
[53:58] whether or not the complaints should be
[54:00] distributed to the rest of the members
[54:02] right I perceive that probably in the
[54:09] majority of instances of things that
[54:14] have brought to me I mean if it's if
[54:16] it's something I guess that's completely
[54:19] frivolous you know I would report it and
[54:25] probably not do much of anything with it
[54:29] right but the vast majority I'm probably
[54:32] going to be in a situation where we're
[54:33] going to sit down and have this
[54:34] discussion as far as complaints that are
[54:38] filed and if they're a hefty complaint
[54:39] it should be that we would get some kind
[54:45] of legal counsel whether it was the
[54:46] state's attorney's office or somebody
[54:49] outside of there before we made a
[54:50] decision because they think we have to
[54:53] be very careful as since the complaint
[55:00] was given to the reporter you know we
[55:03] have to worry about and we're saying
[55:05] that what was in it was not applicable
[55:08] or whatever how do we protect the names
[55:12] as people have been
[55:17] spoken about although nothing has been
[55:19] determined or even suggested that they
[55:23] actually did anything truly wrong you
[55:26] know so well just as and I'm not
[55:35] suggesting that this is what's occurring
[55:37] here yeah okay but just as I don't think
[55:41] a newspaper reporter would want to be
[55:45] used by someone to do their work for
[55:49] them I don't think this Commission wants
[55:53] to be in that position either as a
[55:56] newspaper reporter I tell you that if
[56:00] you get something in which you delve a
[56:05] little bit or talk to the complainant or
[56:07] whatever and you think that there's
[56:10] something to suggest that it's not being
[56:13] handled properly you would deal with it
[56:16] as best you could but you know again we
[56:24] don't want putting out people's names of
[56:27] any kind either the point or the person
[56:31] about to whom they're complaining when
[56:34] there hasn't been any investigation into
[56:37] it or any thing that triggers an
[56:39] investigation and I understand totally
[56:45] what you mean about being used because
[56:51] God knows we get used I never did that
[56:56] to you told me huh I never did that to
[56:58] know but you do have people off the
[57:04] street who you know have to tell you
[57:07] about this terrible thing and it's wrong
[57:08] and believe me I you know I through this
[57:17] whole instance I have made every attempt
[57:22] for both the complaint to feel that they
[57:28] had been treated fairly
[57:30] as well as the subject matter of the
[57:34] absolute plant to be treated fairly in
[57:36] that I I perceive it as trying to
[57:41] fulfill my role just as I would have
[57:45] attempted to fulfill it for the last 22
[57:47] years while I was sitting on the bench
[57:49] you know it's not me to make that final
[57:51] decision in many of these cases it's for
[57:55] somebody else to make the decision you
[57:57] know if there's a jury there there has
[57:58] to be some indication and and you're a
[58:00] good person to make a judgement about
[58:03] that and and this whole thing is
[58:04] judgment unless it would go into a court
[58:07] situation and it's obviously not in our
[58:12] opinion meriting and a further
[58:16] investigation
[58:18] legal the last item as far as a concern
[58:24] that I had that I had voiced way back
[58:27] when when we were putting the ordinance
[58:31] together is that the ordinance and I'm
[58:43] sure this this wasn't taken out that but
[58:45] provides that the ethics officer shall
[58:52] prosecute the complaint and again this
[58:55] has been my primary concern of that that
[58:58] I think if we change the title to
[59:02] administrator then it will be the ethics
[59:04] officers duty to administer it well
[59:09] let's see right now the way that is did
[59:18] it's a section two - two five eight the
[59:21] ethics advisory l'ainte before the
[59:24] Commission and carries the burden of
[59:27] proving the allegations against the
[59:28] respondent by preponderance of the
[59:30] evidence that again puts me in a
[59:32] position as being an a prosecutor which
[59:36] and I think in that it's referring to
[59:39] the state's attorney well and but right
[59:41] now it's the languages myself when I had
[59:45] proposed clear back and I guess I sent
[59:50] this to mr. doar do well several people
[1:00:01] were involved in the communication that
[1:00:03] but include mr. mr. Quinn and
[1:00:05] interesting enough for the complaint but
[1:00:10] I what I proposed was that prior I said
[1:00:23] basically prior to the prosecution of
[1:00:25] the complaint when we get to this stage
[1:00:27] with as a prosecution of the complaint
[1:00:29] it appears that the advisor officer is
[1:00:33] expected to do all I'm expected to do
[1:00:35] would be administrative review of ethics
[1:00:40] statements which I previously discussed
[1:00:42] or investigate the possibility that you
[1:00:47] know a complaint should proceed I
[1:00:51] suggested that an alternative approach
[1:00:56] would be once the investigation is
[1:00:58] completed and complaint has been allowed
[1:01:00] to be filed the further procurement of
[1:01:02] information and hearing and the making
[1:01:04] of the record would be conducted by
[1:01:07] members of the Commission after they
[1:01:09] received all the information requested
[1:01:11] to be a documentary evidence or live
[1:01:13] testimony they would then be required to
[1:01:15] issue the decision they would need to
[1:01:19] conclude that the evidence had proven
[1:01:20] the complaint by preponderance of the
[1:01:22] evidence before they could take
[1:01:23] disciplinary action against the
[1:01:24] respondent so suggestion I made at that
[1:01:27] point in time was that all right I've
[1:01:29] done the investigation I feel that
[1:01:31] further inquiry should be made with an
[1:01:35] opportunity to be heard before the
[1:01:38] Commission the Commission could request
[1:01:40] additional people to attend could allow
[1:01:43] for live testimony to be provided you
[1:01:45] basically would be sitting in bunk
[1:01:48] together here
[1:01:49] what's being presented you would have
[1:01:51] the investigative information that I
[1:01:52] would procure you would allow the
[1:01:54] complainant to come in if they wish to
[1:01:56] do so you would you could call in other
[1:01:58] people you would then make it a decision
[1:02:00] so I don't know if there's really a need
[1:02:02] to have somebody that's actually there
[1:02:04] prosecuting the case right especially
[1:02:07] when we feel if it gets to that point
[1:02:08] we're going to have whatever legal
[1:02:11] authority we need you know either the
[1:02:13] state's attorney or outside correct and
[1:02:21] but that's that's those are things that
[1:02:24] have been there from the beginning that
[1:02:26] I feel are still there as well as other
[1:02:28] things that I feel have been brought up
[1:02:29] right due to what has been about well I
[1:02:35] think that's a that isn't a matter for
[1:02:39] thought I think that your problems if
[1:02:44] you have made those clear to Quinn right
[1:02:46] yes and so he should be aware when we
[1:02:49] notify him that we are going to have
[1:02:52] this other meeting at which we're going
[1:02:54] to talk about changes that we feel need
[1:02:59] to be made revisions so what we need to
[1:03:03] do then I do believe is establish a date
[1:03:06] for another meeting
[1:03:16] all right everybody pull out your
[1:03:18] calendars
[1:03:39] kind of timeframe do you think we look
[1:03:42] at your going away right now the whole
[1:03:45] county knows Toby yes I would suggest
[1:04:01] probably you know you know I don't know
[1:04:05] what mr. Quinn's workload is at the
[1:04:08] current time and what his vacations you
[1:04:13] know hopefully he's gonna have the
[1:04:14] opportunity to have some summer vacation
[1:04:16] and that too and that but maybe a 30-day
[1:04:18] time frame I mean hopefully we won't
[1:04:24] have anything else show up between now
[1:04:27] and then but we'll do the best we can
[1:04:32] yes in July so are we talking possibly
[1:04:43] August something yeah okay can we talk
[1:04:51] about it's a Tuesday acceptable to
[1:04:55] people
[1:04:58] Tuesday's I this seventh August 7 and
[1:05:11] should plan on it being not a 15-minute
[1:05:16] meeting right oh okay we can do it a
[1:05:20] little earlier if we want to make it
[1:05:22] let's find like I don't move much before
[1:05:25] 11:00 10 o'clock
[1:05:29] yeah is that alright that's fine with me
[1:05:31] yeah well that's true too I guess yeah I
[1:05:36] think yeah that would be fine with me
[1:05:38] and then at the current
[1:05:41] and if by chance I give that comb and
[1:05:44] find
[1:05:45] yes something on another calendar okay
[1:06:11] thank you good all righty anything else
[1:06:17] that other business anyone have
[1:06:21] additional business older new business
[1:06:33] eyes I think the press time to speak if
[1:06:36] they have the problem that's what I like
[1:06:42] [Laughter]
[1:06:45] okay then I think we can be adjourned
[1:06:48] all we need a motion to adjourn
[1:06:51] it isn't enough if I say no okay
[1:06:54] choice got a motion to adjourn second
[1:06:59] Vicki sounds second all those in favor
[1:07:02] say aye
[1:07:03] I put a motion to adjourn to was not
[1:07:07] negotiable
[1:07:10] you can't have an eye