Burr Ridge Backtracks On Newsletter Statements

BURR RIDGE, IL — A Burr Ridge trustee contends the village broke the state's open meetings law by enacting regulations for campaign signs outside a public meeting.

But the village said it complied with the law. It said it needed to deal with a proliferating number of signs in public rights of way that violate a village ordinance.

The village also said its pronouncements about campaign sign rules in its newsletters had "no legal effect" and were "not binding."

In its weekly newsletter in late February, the village said its policy was to take "inappropriately placed signs" to Village Hall and give owners seven days to pick them up or they would be disposed of. Another part of the same newsletter put the deadline at 10 days.

In the newsletter a week later, the seven-day deadline remained, but the village added in bold, "Political signs will not be retrievable until after an election is over."

The village's ordinance on signs states violators are fined $50 for each one in violation. The owners of signs can pick up the signs after payment of fines, but must do so within three weeks or the signs can be disposed of. The ordinance includes no references to seven- or 10-day deadlines.

In an email to Patch in early March, Mayor Gary Grasso said the village was dealing with the growing number of signs. He said the village cannot issue citations based on an assumption that the candidate is at fault. Volunteers, he said, are often the ones placing the signs. The village found a realistic way to deal with the problem, he said.

However, Trustee Zach Mottl, who lost his bid for re-election Tuesday, said the behind-the-scenes discussion on the policy change should have been during an open, advertised meeting.

Represented by attorney Matthew Topic, Mottl filed a complaint last month with the attorney general's office. The attorney said the village discussed a matter of public business and amended the village's ordinance without complying with the Open Meetings Act.

"In clear violation (of the act), the Village apparently changed an ordinance by taking a poll among trustees without taking a vote in an open meeting," Topic said in a two-page letter to the attorney general.

In the village's seven-page response, attorney Mike Durkin told the attorney general that the board did not change the ordinance. In February, Grasso spoke with interim Village Administrator Evan Walter about ways to deter the placement of noncompliant signs, Durkin said. One of the ways discussed was to keep the signs in village custody until after the election. The mayor asked Walter to poll the trustees who were not candidates about that proposed change concerning noncompliant signs.

"During each of those conversations, Interim Village Administrator Walter asked each of the three Trustees whether they would support such a proposal to amend the Village's Sign ordinance. Each of the trustees separately indicated (to Walter) they would support such a proposal," Durkin said.

As a result, the village started removing noncompliant signs and keeping them in custody until after the election.

Durkin, the village's attorney, said the board took no "final action" on amending the ordinance. Such action must be in an open meeting.

In the brief, Durkin said the newsletter's statement that political signs would not be retrievable until after the election "has no legal effect and is not binding." The lawyer acknowledged Grasso's statement to Patch that he decided to change the rules on campaign signs, but Durkin said the revisions had not yet been "lawfully effectuated" because of the lack of "final action."

Mottl can file a response with the attorney general. Then the attorney general determines whether the village violated the open meetings law.

As of this week, the village has removed about 80 signs for Mottl and his ally, Elena Galinksi, 40 signs for the mayor's coalition of trustee candidates and 80 for other area politicians, according to the village's letter to the attorney general.