[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

Ethics Commission Meeting 7/3/2018

Transcript