The Madison County Board was met with disapproval and the sounds of booing from the crowd after they voted 19-6 during a special meeting on July 6 to approve an ordinance establishing increased oversight of Board Chairman Kurt Prenzler.
Board members Dalton Gray (R-Troy), Bill Meyer (R-Hamel), Matt King (D-East Alton), Chris Guy (R-Maryville), Liz Dalton (D-Collinsville) and Ryan Kneedler (R-Collinsville) voted against the ordinance. Board members Judy Kuhn (R-Trenton), Terry Eaker (R-Bethalto) and Erica Conway-Harriss (R-Glen Carbon) were absent. The remaining board members supported the ordinance.
According to a press release by several board members, the ordinance removes “nearly all of the chairman’s substantive powers within County Board administration.”
“All of the powers granted the chairman by state law will remain in place, but his powers relating to county administration, which were within the exclusive authority of the board, were removed,” the press release states.
A bi-partisan group of board members filed the petition for a special board meeting to consider an ordinance to amend “personnel policies for County Board appointed officials and department heads and certain Madison County ordinances.”
“It is the opinion of the County Board that the chairman has exhibited chronically inept management, lack of communication or research on important issues relating to lowing (sic) property taxes, lack of attention to his job which decreases the quality of services paid for by taxpayers, and multiple disastrous personnel decisions which have cost the county millions of dollars in legal costs and settlements,” the proposed ordinance states.
The petition was signed by board members Eric Foster (R-Granite City), Chris Hankins (D-Pontoon Beach), Guy, Denise Wiehardt (R-Granite City), Nick Petrillo (D-Granite City), Gussie Glasper (D-Madison), Mike Walters (R-Godfrey), Bobby Ross (R-St. Jacob), Stacey Pace (R-Troy), James Goggin (R-Edwardsville), Mick Madison (R-Bethalto) and Eaker.
Although the petition was a bi-partisan move, Madison County Democratic Chair Randy Harris considers it an attempt by the Republican board members asking the Democrats to bail them out of a failed Republican administration.
“The Republicans are admitting they simply cannot be trusted to be adults and run the County,” Harris stated in a press release. “This effort, is just another reason people are disgusted and fed up with politics and the trust of our government is at an all-time low. When you bring an intra-party fight, the Republicans are having with themselves, and ask the taxpayers and public to waste time with it, it’s (sic) just shows that Madison County Republicans cannot be trusted to lead.”
“They know they’re unable to govern effectively, Democratic Board members and officials have been sounding this alarm for years,” Harris added. “This is nothing new, the only thing that changed, some of these Republican Board members lost an election, now they’re asking the Democrats to help them.”
One thing Harris and Prenzler agree on is that they think the petition was done in retaliation after Prenzler endorsed Republican candidates in the June 28 primary election who ran against incumbent board members.
In District 7, candidate Michael Turner beat former board member Ray Wesley with 68 percent of the votes; in District 21, candidate John Janek beat incumbent Foster with 53 percent of the votes; and in District 24, candidate Skip Schmidt beat Goggin with 51 percent of the votes.
“What is leadership in our form of government? Leadership is not reacting to election results, but accepting the will of the people,” Prenzler previously responded.
“More than 70,000 Madison County citizens chose me over my pro-tax opponent precisely because I’m pro-taxpayer. And I’m not going to change my position after the election just because I have opposition.
“I will not back down to those who want to change our county’s form of government without a referendum - back to the good ole days - when one board member was elected by other board members - to divvy up the spoils. To back down would disenfranchise the 70,000 voters who elected me,” he continued.
During the special meeting, Foster moved to bring the proposed ordinance forward for discussion and board member Wiehardt seconded the motion.
Gray was the first board member to speak.
“Today we consider an amendment to change the structure of how government functions in Madison County,” Gray said. We do this, this is in the immediate aftermath of a contentious primary and days after we all took time to honor our country’s independence. The normal process of this board is to send an item to committee to be discussed and deliberated on. The taxpayers then have an opportunity to reach out and let their voice be heard, and then we bring up the item for a discussion and a vote. This is not an everyday business item for the county board and it has not gone through the traditional channels. It’s a very serious thing to change the structure of our government especially when it is being done without the vote of the taxpayers.
The crowd erupted in cheers at Gray’s statement.
“We must be mindful of the precedent that this sets. If we start making laws directed specifically at one individual,” he continued. “As board members, we are obligated to consider both intended and unintended consequences before taking action. I understand emotions are high, but I do not believe this is the time or the place for this decision. I will be voting “no,” and I ask that you do the same.”
Board member Mike Babcock (R-Bethalto) made a motion to table or postpone the issue for 30 days. Madison seconded his motion.
While Madison was one of the original board members to sign the petition to consider the proposed ordinance, he noted that he signed his name so that the issue could be heard but had not yet decided how he planned to vote on it.
King abstained from voting on the motion to postpone. When Prenzler explained that he had to provide a reason for abstaining, King responded, “Yeah, this is ridiculous.”
The crowd laughed and cheered.
“This is taxpayers’ money being wasted here,” King said.
Other individuals present at the meeting, either board members or county officials, said that he could not abstain. Prenzler explained that county ordinance does not allow him to abstain without a conflict of interest, such as financial conflicts.
The motion to table or postpone ended up failing, so the proposed ordinance remained on the floor for discussion.
Guy, who was one of the board members who signed the petition, said he would be voting against the ordinance “as I support the voters of Madison County that chose to elect a County Board chairman.”
“The County Board Chairman position was created to be a voice and a vote for the taxpayers,” he continued. “It was just two, less than two years ago, that our County Board Chairman was re-elected to a four-year term … Silencing the voters’ choice in the middle of his term goes against the wishes of the voters that elected him to serve. This isn’t about defending Mr. Prenzler or anybody, this is about protecting the chairmanship.”
Following more cheers from the crowd in attendance at the meeting, board member Dalton said she would be voting “no” because the chairmanship is for the voters to decide.
“They elect the chairman, be it good, bad or indifferent,” she said. “I’ve had the wrath of you and some of your people against me when I ran for re-election, but you learn to live with that and you learn to work with people on the other side. I’m a Democrat, I’ve learned to work with the Republicans and vice versa. You do not strip the voters of their rights to elect a chairman, and that is my biggest concern when I saw this ordinance. Yes there have been things that have taken place that the voters need to know what has happened. And you are not a saint, you know that yourself, but none of us are. We make mistakes and we try to rectify those because we serve the people, not our own concerns.”
After more cheers from the crowd, board member Bill Stoutenborough (D-Alton) said, “If this were a popularity contest, it’s obvious what would happen.”
He said that he suspected those in the audience to be Prenzler’s friends but was interrupted when they yelled, “We’re voters” and “The 70,000 who elected him,” among other responses.
“The voters who are here, they say they’re not your friends,” Stoutenborough added. “Well I hope they are your friend, because everyone needs a friend.”
Stoutenborough said that the proposed ordinance changes “should never have happened” if Prenzler provided responses and cooperation when approached with issues. He said he was concerned last June when Prenzler suggested rotating auditors after suspecting possible collusion. Stoutenborough, who said he has 10 years of experience as a CPA,said they needed quality audits rather than rotating auditors and suggested they create an audit committee. He said Prenzler did not respond to his suggestion, adding that he has heard of similar situations from others.
“We should have avoided this with better cooperation,” Stoutenborough said.
Prenzler responded that he has never accused anyone of collusion or suspected collusion, but added that he does favor the rotation of outside auditors every five or six years.
Weihardt then brought up a letter that was allegedly written by Prenzler in support of Weihardt’s opponent in the Republican primary, Elaine Beckland.
“It had belittling and false statements, and one that I find most offensive is what you think defines a woman,” she said.
Weihardt said the letter stated, “What a woman should be: married.”
She said the statement implied that she is less of a woman because she is not married.
Weihardt called the letter offensive and disturbing.
“I have dedicated 30-plus years to working with women who find themselves in very unfortunate situations, and I find it very disturbing that you feel these are not real women because they aren’t married or they are choosing to leave a relationship,” Weihardt said. “And, Mr. Chairman, I just pray that your daughter never finds herself in one of these situations.”
“The job here that the board has is to work together for the better of Madison County,” she added. “And when you continue to insurge your personal thoughts and beliefs into matters, that hinders our ability to move forward.”
Prenzler responded to Weihardt saying he regrets the letter but also wanted to provide an explanation. He said the phrase first came from an endorsement for Janek, who ran against Foster in the primary election. The letter stated “John Janek is what a man should be: married to his wife for 49 yeas, four kids, 12 grandkids.”
Prenzler said he continued to use the same template for additional endorsements.
He was then asked by Foster if he believes a man is less of a man for not being married for 49 years. He called the letter “misogynistic behavior” and was met with both cheers and disapproval from audience members.
Prenzler responded that he just wanted to explain where the template came from.
“Ms. Weihardt, I did not attempt to disparage you at all.”
Foster was again met with disapproval from the audience when he said Prenzler engaged in misogynistic and homophobic behavior that he said allegedly cost the county millions of dollars.
Foster continued, “It’s been 10 days since Granite City Steel has announced its closing. While you’re campaigning, the rest of us have been meeting with local officials trying to figure out what we’re going to do to help the thousand people that’s going to lose their job. We’ve yet to get a statement from your office. This is another example of how you failed to lead this county going forward. What you heard tonight is a very small amount of what this board has had to contend with, with your behavior and your actions over the past 36 to 48 months. I am asking for you to call the vote.”
Walters said that as chairman pro-tem for more than five years, he has begged Prenzler to talk with board members to resolve frustrations and help get things done.
“He doesn’t do that,” Walters said.
Walters added that Prenzler mentioned that he is trying to conduct a fair meeting and has allowed the crowd to ask questions to the State’s Attorney for the first time.
“That’s not fair, that’s not why they’re up there. Matter of fact, they should be escorted out of here if they are interrupting the meeting. Now, I don’t want people tossed out, but if they continue to ask questions improperly and you don’t have them escorted out, you’re not running a fair meeting,” Walters said.
“I’m sorry Mr. Prenzler, I have defended you for five and a half years,” he continued. “I have taken bullets, I have been stabbed in the back by people, I have done everything I can to help you. I told you about this. I said, ‘Kurt, we can stop this. Let’s get it done. Work with us.’ And yet, how many board members did you call to talk about this meeting?”
Prenzler responded that he called, emailed and sent text messages to “many.”
Walters said that when he sat down with him to try to fix things it was because he called Prenzler, but not the other way around.
“What we’re voting on tonight is because of the lack of your communication skills,” Walters said.
He added that the board is not taking away Prenzler’s powers, but is “overseeing what you are doing, because the board is tired of lawsuits after lawsuits after lawsuits.”
Some people in attendance cheered.
He continued that the meeting and proposed ordinance is not about PTELL, or the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law.
“This has to do with the fact that you refuse to work with anybody,” Walters said. “No offense Mr. Prenzler, but I think I probably work as many hours a week as you do.”
“I’ve been oversighting you for five and a half years … and I’m more than happy to resign as the pro-tem because I have worked with you, but when you won’t listen to me - the guy that you picked to be your pro-tem - I don’t know how you think you’re going to work with the rest of this board,” Walters continued.
Madison followed up saying it is the responsibility of the county board chairman to implement the policies the county board passes and to run the day-to-day county operations.
“My problem here is that you seem to view the office as if it is an executive-style county office, where it is separate from the county board,” Madison said. “In my view, you’re supposed to do, follow the wishes of the county board, not dictate to the county board.”
“I don’t see the powers that you believe you have,” he added.
Madison and Babcock both said the ordinance they are pursuing is not an impeachment.
Babcock said they are in a quadrum, not sure who to believe or what to believe. He said he disagrees that the proposed ordinance is in retaliation for Prenzler’s endorsements of challengers for various Madison County board seats. He said the county board has been trying to pass a resolution increasing oversight over Prenzler for at least a year but hasn’t moved forward because other board members have asked them not to.
“The reason we are here tonight is because of the lawsuits we have had against Madison County residents,” Babcock said.
He then apologized to the public because he originally said he would not vote in favor of the ordinance, but said he has since changed his mind after seeing the argument that it was done in response to the primary election.
“That is categorically false,” he said. “I’m telling you it’s false because I know that they wanted to do this a year and a half ago.”
King can be heard saying, “I didn’t know that.”
“This is not because of an election where four incumbents lost their seats,” Babcock added.
After outlining several recent lawsuits that have cost the county more than $2 million, Babcock concluded by saying they are seeking to mitigate lawsuits by taking over the hiring and termination process for county employees.
“To be clear to the public that is here, we are not taking away his power. He will still have the power to chair meetings, submitting apportionment plans, appointments to Madison County transit, replacing vacancies of any county-wide elected position, appoint to the board of health advisory committee, appoint to the fire protection districts, calling special meetings, appointments of county board members,” Babcock said. “His pay stays the same, it doesn’t change.”
Rulings on the appropriateness of the proposed ordinance
Before the proposed ordinance was discussed and following public comment on the matter, Prenzler addressed some concerns he had about the appropriateness of the special meeting.
Prenzler began by ruling that the ordinance was improper and the special meeting was invalid because the issue was not placed on the agenda in the proper time frame. County ordinance requires notice to be given four working days prior to the meeting. However, the petition for an ordinance amending county policy was provided two and a half working days in advance.
A county board member asked for State’s Attorney Tom Haine’s opinion on the matter. Prenzler first wanted Haine to clarify who he represents, specifically asking him to state whether he represents Prenzler.
“Mr. Haine, you have publicly endorsed this resolution or ordinance, whatever it’s called, publicly and that has adversed my official interests. So I will assert right now that you do not represent me. I have asked for independent special representation, and I do not have it,” Prenzler said.
Haine said he believes the county procedures were followed in calling the special meeting. He said it was his office’s conclusion that a different section of the county ordinances applies, which controls the procedure specifically for special meetings. State statute requires two days for prior knowledge in writing to the special meeting.
“Notice here was entirely procedurally correct,” Haine said.
He added that even if it were an invalid meeting, “that does not invalidate the actions that the board takes.”
The board challenged Prenzler’s ruling that the notice was improper, which passed by a majority vote.
Prenzler also said it was his understanding that new petitions must first go through the appropriate committee before it is presented to the full board.
Haine disagreed, saying this issue is not considered “new business” and cannot be removed from the agenda after being properly noticed.
Prenzler also ruled that the ordinance was out of order for violating Illinois’ county code.
Haine said this is a disagreement on a legal conclusion. He added that the ordinance is within the board’s power and has been his advice to the board “for over a year.”
“In a township form of government, the allocation of powers internal to county administration is up to the board,” Haine wrote in a memo provided to board members last year.
He said the County Board has the ability to modify the duties of the chairman except for those established by statute.
“This ordinance does not disturb any statutorily-granted powers,” Haine said. “In fact, it specifically preserves them. All it does is relates to how the board manages the board’s own business internal to county administration, personnel issues, appointments only to board offices, etc.”
Prenzler also ruled that the ordinance was out of order because it transfers powers away from the elected chairman to the county administrator, which would require the administrator’s agreement. He said it would also require the Personnel Committee to change the job description and compensation “since this would obviously increase his workload.”
Haine again said the ordinance is “fully within the powers of the Board to do.” Whether or not this county administrator agrees to do it, ordinances change how county business is conducted, he added.
Madison addressed Prenzler saying he hadn’t yet determined how he was going to vote on the proposed ordinance, but expressed concern that they haven’t gotten to hear any of the evidence brought in regards to the proposed ordinance.
“I put my name on that letter so that we could have a hearing, not have a mockery made out of that hearing,” he said.
Prenzler responded that they would move on to the proposed ordinance after he addressed his concerns about the appropriateness of the meeting.