We have a Board to decide about the DPW building. We do not need any resident lawyers informally advising our mayor especially leaving the rest of the board in the dark.

What is Mr. (or Ms.) Welchs problem with a mayoral advisory committee. With as much controversy generated by the DPW building, it seems to me that Mayor Joe is being very responsible.

There is a fine line between responsible and incompetent pertaining to this context.

I belive the Village residents elected a Mayor to make decisions and a Board of Trustees to vote on the viability of those decisions.

If the "I'll learn on the job" Mayor cant make decisions without refering to more experienced personel then maybe come next election a more experienced person should step up to this apparently vital position within the community.

The Mayor may -- and should -- consult with any citizen who has ideas or insights which may help him discharge the duties of his office. That's the absolute constitutional right any of us has, whether we're public officeholders or just citizens.

During the entire history of this Village, the Mayor has had a Village Attorney of his choosing. Until this year, that is, when the "Attorney for the Village Board" was hired over his objection.

Since that time, the Board "majority" have their counsel but the Mayor has not. "Counsel" implies a relationship of trust and confidence; that's why a President gets to choose his Attorney General and why, at least historically, the Village Attorney appointment has been made with the Mayor's consent.

This dispute is now before the Attorney General's office. We'll see how it turns out.

Jon,

Maybe it never came up during the entire history of this village because there was never a need. Today there is a dire need.

I believe the Attorney Generals Office will find a quorum is needed to appoint Counsel. The Law continually states that Village Business be passed by the Trustees and the Mayor will break any tie.

If you can cite something different do so.

I'm confident the Attorney Generals Office will also see it that way.

It's not about a quorum, Pat.

Under the Village Law of this State, the Mayor appoints, the Board approves.

Except this time, where the "majority" paid no heed to the Mayor's right. That's the part that's unprecedented. In the long history of this Village, no Village Attorney has ever taken office here over the objection of the Mayor -- until this year.

We'll see what the Attorney General's office does with that.

Jon,

They may have always approved but always had the option to vote it down. That's the way I read it. Five votes to avoid a tie. The Mayor votes last to break a tie. If it's 3 to 2 against the Mayor that's the way it reads.

Anyway your help at getting back money from the responsible party due to slipshop building I'm sure is appreciated by all villagers. Pat

I'm a taxpayer too; that's one reason why I don't want to see all Villagers pay for the negligence, or worse, of a few.

On the governance point, it's true that the Mayor has but one vote on the board, and no veto, but generally he has the power to appoint, while the Board has the power to approve or ratify. Had that practice been followed on the Village Attorney question, by definition everybody would have gotten a choice they could have lived with. As it is, we've had two consecutive firms with conflicts of interest on the DPW building. Which is why another firm has to be found for that MAJOR problem.

Sneaky, schmeaky. A document is either a public document subject to a FOIL request or it's not. Nobody has suggested that any document shown to me is in any way confidential.

Besides, Bob, how would you know, way out there in Indiana, about whether some of the public documents were gotten via FOIL or not?

I mean, if you're really out there in Indiana and all....

No sir, "Mr. Coons," I'm not feeling guilty at all. The Mayor has shown me publicly available documents. And the fact that I've "only" lived here four years means I'm just in time to pick up the check for the carelessness of a few before I arrived here. Does that seem right to you?

My (still unanswered) question to you was how, if you really live in Indiana, you got the information about me or anybody else being shown documents without a FOIL request?

Are you for real, "Mr. Coons"? Or are you a surrogate for somebody here who doesn't have the courage to speak for themselves?