Trustee William “Bud” Stalker and Village Clerk Jane Quinlan verbally sparred over the omission of ordinance documents and updated contracts in the board packet prior to a vote at the last regular board meeting.
On the proposed prevailing wage ordinance, which is adopted every year by local municipalities Stalker interjected prior to the vote, noting that the ordinance was not included in the packet provided to Trustees a few days before the board meeting.
After fellow Trustees Alex Olejniczak (Dist. 2) and Terry Vorderer (Dist. 4) made and seconded the motion, Stalker said, “I hate to vote on something that wasn’t in the packet. I personally believe it (the ordinance) is fine but I’d like to see it in the packet before we vote on it.”
Before anyone could respond, Clerk Jane Quinlan responded, “Thanks for letting me know. I wish you would have let me know ahead of time. I could get it to you instantly.”
Stalker then explained the meeting agenda was revised and I don’t know if it was in before that revision or not. In any case, he said, “I want to have time to read something before I vote on it.”
Stalker abstained on that vote, but it passed. A second issue arose quickly thereafter.
A few minutes later, the same issue, with a slight twist, was brought to light on a contract with Olejniczak making the motion once again and Trustee Michael Carberry (Dist. 6) seconding the motion to approve. Stalker immediately questioned whether the board was approving the original draft of the ordinance that was in the packet.
He asked whether the board was voting on the original document included in the packet or a new document that was set in front of the Trustees at the meeting.
Village Attorney Patrick Connelly stated that the Village had finished a conference call with the company in the morning and that the board was voting on the revised document.
Stalker then asked, “Where does the twenty thousand dollars on page five come in? Is it part of the sixty thousand previous…” Stalker explained that he believes the system is fine and that he didn’t want to delay it.
While he didn’t have a problem with the idea of contracting with the company, he insisted on being able to see the document before the meeting. “Again, I want to see this stuff before the meeting.”
Brian Hannigan, the Village’s Finance Director, was then asked if he could answer Stalker’s inquiry. Mayor Bury asked if the numbers were inclusive or are there additional fees. Connelly interjected stating that there could be additional fees.
Stalker said, “I don’t understand why we are seeing this now and not earlier. That’s my only question”
Mayor Sandra Bury then stated, “I think the concern was because the meeting the next would be July. We would lose the momentum for the season.”
Stalker again made it clear that he didn’t disagree with the contract but was concerned about receiving the document at the last minute. “I agree 100% I just want to make sure I have time to review these things before we vote on them. That’s all. I don’t know where these two numbers come from,” said Stalker.
Even after that statement, Trustee Terry Vorderer appeared ready to push the vote forward, stating, “but weren’t these discussed in the legal and ordinance (committee)a couple of weeks ago at length?” Stalker agreed that the idea was discussed at a committee meeting, in which only three board members are members but he noted that the board did not get two documents until “tonight”. As Stalker said the word, tonight, he held up two documents.
Vorderer agreed stating, “yes, that’s a fact but we just got the contract signed.”
When Stalker asked what the total cost of the contract to the village was over three years, Bury had to ask Hannigan for an answer. He provided the answer, noting the two distinct charges, but also suggested that the board table the meeting.
Olejniczak said that the numbers discussed were the same numbers that were discussed at the legal and ordinance committee and postponing it would delay the property maintenance issues. It was postponed to another meeting by unanimous vote