By Anita Varghese
Staff Writer
August 20 -- The
City Council last week asked
staff to explore options for
providing a mechanism for
appeals to be continued if
five or fewer council members
are present.
Last Tuesday’s action
followed a contentious June
meeting when a Landmarks Commission
appeal was technically denied
because the four council members
present failed to come up
with a motion. (see
story)
City attorneys and the council
now anticipate “significant
exposure” to litigation,
possibly from the University
of Illinois Foundation, which
owns the landmarked single-family
residence at 2219 Ocean Avenue.
After discussing the possible
litigation in closed session
Tuesday, Council members Bob
Holbrook and Pam O’Connor
requested in open session
that the council change its
rules to direct staff to schedule
appeals on meeting nights
when at least six members
are expected to be present.
In the event that an appeal
is ready to be heard and fewer
than six council members are
on the dais, Holbrook and
O’Connor suggested an
appellant have the choice
to continue the hearing to
a future date.
“If a vote comes to
four-one, that is really a
tough situation to face,”
Holbrook said. “If this
is a trial and the jury was
supposed to have seven members
and the jury kept getting
smaller and smaller, would
anyone like this or think
it is fair?”
O’Connor said changing
council rules is no different
than what staff already does
in terms of agenda management.
Staff, O’Connor said,
routinely calls council members
to find out if they will be
present at a meeting. Staff
has a tendency not to schedule
complex or hot topics on a
meeting night when more than
two members said they would
be absent, she said.
With Council member Kevin
McKeown voting against changing
any Council rules, the other
six Council members directed
staff to also look at rule
changes that allow the majority
of those present to vote whether
or not to continue an appeal.
“This is a cure that
is worse than the perceived
disease,” McKeown said.
At the June 26 appeal hearing
of the landmark decision,
there was an unexpected absence
from one of the council members.
At the time, there was also
no council rule to allow the
members present to vote to
continue the appeal.
The council could not find
a majority to vote on any
issue regarding the case or
its continuance.
On Tuesday Council member
Ken Genser voted for the staff
direction, despite favoring
no rule changes. He suggested
to staff that they include
in their report the idea of
making no changes to council
rules.
McKeown, Genser and Mayor
Richard Bloom believe what
happened in June is an isolated
incident and can be handled
in a respectable manner by
the council immediately before
the appeal is to be heard.
Forcing staff to keep the
appeal off of the agenda ahead
of the meeting creates logistical
problems, the three council
members said.
City ordinances and appeals
are legally required to be
kept on an exact timetable,
Genser said.
What if two council members
separately told staff they
would not be present to hear
an appeal because of something
related to a vacation, family
or work, and then circumstances
later change to where one
of the members can attend
the meeting?
In this case, Genser said,
six members would be available
for the meeting, but staff
would not have the opportunity
to schedule the appeal in
time for adequate public notice
of the hearing.
