Politics & Government
Mayor Pulls the Plug on Request to Kill Pre-Council Meetings
The measure lacked enough votes to pass, Tom Giarrante said. It also triggered an opposition robocall from a Joliet group called Concerned Citizens for Transparency.
Joliet Mayor Tom Giarrante said Tuesday he would not push to eliminate the Joliet City Council's "pre-council" meetings, saying it was clear he didn't have enough votes to support the change.
His announcement came the same day a group calling itself Concerned Citizens for Transparency launched a robocall that chastised the mayor for wanting to cut the number of council meetings in half while still collecting the same pay. The call urged the public to call his office in opposition.
The council was informed of his decision Monday, Giarrante said, so the automated calls did not influence his decision. He also said he did not know who was behind the Concerned Citizens group.
"It's strictly grandstanding and politics," he said. "Anything to try to make me look bad."
The council meets four times a month -- on the first and third Mondays of the month for a pre-council meeting and on the first and third Tuesdays for a regular council meeting.
At the pre-council meetings, the city manager presents each item on the regular meeting agenda so council members can hear from staff members, ask questions and allow the public to speak. Then, depending on the nature of the issue, it is either voted on at that meeting or held over until the Tuesday meeting.
The system worked well when the economy was strong and the council had a lot of issues to discuss, Giarrante said. It allowed one long agenda to be dealt with over two days, and provided time for the staff to gather more information if there were questions, he said.
With agendas being far smaller these days, the need to have two meetings seems unnecessary, he said.
And it's confusing to residents who think something is going to be voted on at the regular meeting, only to learn after-the-fact that the council dealt with it on Monday, he said. Conversely, if someone made a presentation to the council on an agenda issue, it's inconvenient -- and sometimes costly, if a lawyer is required -- to make them return the following day for the council's vote, he said.
Initially, Giarrante said, he spoke with councilmen Jim McFarland and Bob O'Dekirk and got the impression both supported the change. When it came up at the Nov. 18 council meeting, however, neither solidly backed his proposal, he said.
McFarland suggested that to cut half the meetings, the council's annual $19,000 compensation should be reduced by the same.
The council member most adamantly opposed was Councilman Larry Hug.
"With all due respect, mayor, if it's not broke don't fix it," Hug said.
"This is all about transparency and visibility. It may be inconvenient for some folks who come here and have a matter before the council. However, if the matter is important to them, they will come back the next day and they will understand it's a matter of order and law. ... I really don't want to take half the meetings away from the citizens of Joliet."
Based on that feedback, Giarrante said, the issue is dead in his estimation.
"The best-case scenario is a 4-4 vote, and that wouldn't do it," he said.
The council was informed of his decision Monday, Giarrante said, so the automated calls did not influence his decision. He also said he did not know who was behind the Concerned Citizens group.
"It's strictly grandstanding and politics," he said. "Anything to try to make me look bad."
The council meets four times a month -- on the first and third Mondays of the month for a pre-council meeting and on the first and third Tuesdays for a regular council meeting.
At the pre-council meetings, the city manager presents each item on the regular meeting agenda so council members can hear from staff members, ask questions and allow the public to speak. Then, depending on the nature of the issue, it is either voted on at that meeting or held over until the Tuesday meeting.
The system worked well when the economy was strong and the council had a lot of issues to discuss, Giarrante said. It allowed one long agenda to be dealt with over two days, and provided time for the staff to gather more information if there were questions, he said.
With agendas being far smaller these days, the need to have two meetings seems unnecessary, he said.
And it's confusing to residents who think something is going to be voted on at the regular meeting, only to learn after-the-fact that the council dealt with it on Monday, he said. Conversely, if someone made a presentation to the council on an agenda issue, it's inconvenient -- and sometimes costly, if a lawyer is required -- to make them return the following day for the council's vote, he said.
Initially, Giarrante said, he spoke with councilmen Jim McFarland and Bob O'Dekirk and got the impression both supported the change. When it came up at the Nov. 18 council meeting, however, neither solidly backed his proposal, he said.
McFarland suggested that to cut half the meetings, the council's annual $19,000 compensation should be reduced by the same.
The council member most adamantly opposed was Councilman Larry Hug.
"With all due respect, mayor, if it's not broke don't fix it," Hug said.
"This is all about transparency and visibility. It may be inconvenient for some folks who come here and have a matter before the council. However, if the matter is important to them, they will come back the next day and they will understand it's a matter of order and law. ... I really don't want to take half the meetings away from the citizens of Joliet."
Based on that feedback, Giarrante said, the issue is dead in his estimation.
"The best-case scenario is a 4-4 vote, and that wouldn't do it," he said.
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.
