The Setup

For nearly all of the past 20 years, my day job has been about providing services for adults with developmental, physical, intellectual and/or mental disabilities. One of the challenges is to keep vulnerable people safe. We sometimes fail. Abuse and neglect sometimes occur no matter how good the service agency is, so what counts is how it deals with these incidents when (not if) they happen.

Too often, the response from the higher-ups is a reflexive instinct to cover it up. Top management sets the tone.

I was still quite green when first encountering an incident of abuse at a group home. A young woman returned from a holiday visit with family and complained that her legs hurt. When we checked them we found huge, deep purple bruises that had been inflicted, she said, with steel-toed boots. I began phoning supervisors to tell them that we were taking her to the emergency room. My immediate supervisor was great, but the boss of my boss expressed reservations.

“Are you sure we need to do that?” he asked. “That’ll open up a can of worms.”

Thus began my second, parallel career as a can opener.

Those who open the cans of worms–the watchdogs, the squeaky wheels, the whistleblowers and other truth tellers–know that this can be not only a thankless job but also one of the most exhausting. It takes a lot of time to find the truth, deliver the truth, and re-deliver until the correct response emerges; and every step of the way, arrayed against the “openers” are defenders of status quo, self-interested nest-feathering fiefdom-builders, hacks who just don’t want to be bothered and other practitioners of the art of Shut Up. Read the rest of this entry

Part of Donna Johnson’s job as city clerk also includes the role of deputy liquor commissioner. It was in this capacity that Johnson was put on the defensive in early 2005, when “the city” made the decision to allow a tavern to pay a fine for getting caught serving a minor without the requisite public notice and hearing. The Daily Chronicle asked how a settlement could be reached when no charges were filed, and noted that the then-mayor, who also was the liquor commissioner, did not sign the settlement.

This occurred during an election campaign and challenger Frank Van Buer, who would himself become mayor a couple months later, wrote a stinging letter to the editor condemning “back-room deals.”

Johnson rebutted with her own letter. She defended the practice as standard operating procedure and a money-saving measure for taxpayers, even though the municipal code (at the time, at least) did not allow bar owners to waive hearings. Also:

In the matter of the Twin Tavern violation referred to in Mr. Van Buer’s letter, I happen to know that violation occurred because of a mistake made by an employee. It was not because of poor management. This establishment had a record of 40 years with no violations.

This is simply not true, unless the record somehow got erased.

Last night was the meeting rescheduled from the rained-out 9th. Alderman Wogen was absent. Those present were sharp and on the job. Alderman Gorski is working to ensure that the annexed Orr Farm/Park 88 lot that faces Route 38 will have traffic access to 38 only if it retains a retail/commercial zoning, but will have to make due with only Peace Road access if it becomes industrial. Alderman Naylor asked about a Special Service Area designation for the annexation involving the Target store expansion. Alderman Keller was the only “nay” vote on an omnibus resolution to fund local public agencies, definitely swimming against the $$ flow.

What was most interesting to me, however, was the council-clerk-staff dynamic that one might well call “circling the wagons,” apparently in response to pressure on city clerk Donna Johnson from several individuals in regards to late, poorly summarized (and perhaps politicized) meeting minutes; pressure in the form of phone calls, e-mails, a meeting with the mayor and a letter to the editor. Alderman Gorski found an opportunity last night to thank Johnson for her rapid online posting of new and amended ordinances. Frances Loubere’s complaints about the minutes and council’s lack of response to unresolved campaign problems were met with frozen silence. Ward reports consisted of compliments from aldermen to city clerk and staff–I swear I expected them to blow kisses to each other.

Near the end of the meeting Johnson spoke, mostly to make clear that she will not be writing any rebuttal letters to the editor nor taking any other step to correct or apologize for her failures to the public she is supposed to serve. Instead, she invited anyone with questions about her job to arrange to visit her there. Yup, we are supposed to follow her into her comfort zone to be charmed or bullied into silence, or to take time out of our days to witness firsthand why it is she can’t/won’t meet deadlines, write proper summaries or guide her department into the 21st Century.

[UPDATE 7/16: The June 11 council meeting minutes are posted at the city site as of today, exactly three weeks late and two days after this letter appeared in the Chronicle. Under Item L, Citizen Comments: "Ms. Frances Loubere, 826 North 7th Street, DeKalb, spoke regarding the results of the recent 3rd Ward election." (Of course, as in the May 29 citizens comments it was more than that. Ms. Loubere was also asking Wogen to clarify his positions and denounce the tactics of his backers.) Under Item M, Reports: "Ald. Wogen responded to comments made by Ms. Frances Loubere. He noted he would like to get past the issue, move on and do a good job for the 3rd Ward, and hopefully all can move forward together." (Where's the part where he said he was as pro-gay as Steve Kapitan?)]

[UPDATE 7/15: The June 11 council meeting minutes still have not been posted at the city's website. I understand from Wogen Watch that requests for investigations have been made at the state's attorney's and attorney general's offices.]

A snippet of the Illinois Open Meetings Act, regarding the taking and posting of meeting minutes:

(5 ILCS 120/2.06) (from Ch. 102, par. 42.06)
Sec. 2.06. Minutes.
[...]
(b) The minutes of meetings open to the public shall be available for public inspection within 7 days of the approval of such minutes by the public body. Beginning July 1, 2006, at the time it complies with the other requirements of this subsection, a public body that has a website that the full‑time staff of the public body maintains shall post the minutes of a regular meeting of its governing body open to the public on the public body’s website within 7 days of the approval of the minutes by the public body. Beginning July 1, 2006, any minutes of meetings open to the public posted on the public body’s website shall remain posted on the website for at least 60 days after their initial posting.

The minutes of the June 11 Committee-of-the-Whole and Regular City Council meetings were approved during the June 25 Regular meeting. As of today, these minutes are still not posted at the city’s website. This isn’t the first time, either.