Residents Crusade or Church Facing Closure

I am a member of the Plan Commission and I thought that someone needed to respond to this article. First, I understand that emotions are high with this project as emotional responses are always elicited when one perceives a threat to their neighborhood. Afterall, I became involved in the Village and took a particular interest in the Plan Commission after I felt wronged by the decision to put an exit from the clinic on Western. Second, I respect and embrace the neighborhood's right to organize and advocate for their position.

That being said, in this process, there have been numerous misunderstandings and unfounded suspicions about the role of Trustee Armstrong in the Planning Commission. Specifically, the article above reads:

quote:

What perplexes the residents is what they found out during a Jan. 10 Plan Commission meeting: that Village Board member Tim Armstrong, a banking and real estate attorney, was representing Montessori. Armstrong also is the liaison between the Plan Commission and the board.

"Tim Armstrong should either have chosen not to represent Montessori or should have stepped down as liaison," resident Steve Horvath said.

Armstrong insisted that if and when the Christ Church issue comes before the board, he will not vote on the matter.

Residents say that's not good enough, that as a liaison he can still sway the thinking of both the Plan Commission and the Village Board.

Armstrong disagrees. "People think I have more influence than I actually have," he said. "As liaison, I act as a reporter when I attend the Plan Commission meetings. And I have client-attorney confidentiality with Montessori, so I can't divulge information about the school."

Recently, Village Attorney Stewart Diamond said Armstrong's involvement with Montessori does not constitute a conflict of interest.

Village officials said they will ask Armstrong to step down as Plan Commission liaison.

But residents still have a bitter taste in their mouths. "There should have been full disclosure from the very beginning," said Carl Cepuran, who lives next to the church and opposes having a school on the property. "We deserve better from our government."

I was the Commissioner who asked who represented the potential buyer at the meeting. Although I am a lawyer, there was a legal issue that I felt needed to be explained and/or looked into. Trustee Armstrong spoke up, disclosed the fact the he represented the petitioner, and stated that he would recuse himself from voting on this issue if he made it to the Village Board.

Trustee Armstrong is merely a liaison. He doesn't discuss projects with us, doesn't lend his two cents to projects (ever), and has no decision making authority in the Plan Commission. He merely observes and reports back to the Trustees.

That being said, if he had spoken to anyone on the Plan Commission or "exerted his influence," do you think that his representation would have been brought up at the meeting?

Trustee Armstrong is a good man who does his best for the Village. I am confident that he puts the Village ahead of his own interests. However, as a local attorney (like a builder, architect, etc.), and like numerous others who live here and appear before boards and commissions, it is inevitable that one's career is going to cross with one's public service. It's unfortunate that it happened here as I don't want anyone to think that there has been any influence whatsoever - both on this project and on any other project.

I just felt that he is getting unnecessary criticism and wanted to fully inform of what the interaction is between the commission and the liaison - and hopefully allay any skepticism about the process and quell any rumors before they get out of control.

Thanks.

Ryan

If you have a meeting to discuss, make sure it's scheduled for the next available holiday so you know you get the appropriate community involvement. The plan commission did a bang up job of scheduling the meeting for Valentine's Day, I think it only makes sense to schedule the next community meeting for Easter Sunday.

Ryan,
I very much appreciate your response here and I do believe that Trustee Armstrong will not try to exert influence on the plan commission BUT it still gives the automatic support of said trustee when he is representing the petitioner. No matter how much we human beings say we won't be influenced by such things, we are. As an attorney, he should not be permitted to represent anyone bringing business before the village while a Trustee. I know it's difficult but it's also important. Just as questions/concerns arose from the gentleman serving on the committee screening possible Strategic Planning Firms, who, it turned out, did competitive bidding with one of the chosen firms to present to the Trustees, it creates an air of impropriety. Now, the damage is done as this is one piece of information that helped undermine the selection process of a strategic planning firm. Now, it's also too late to clear the air for Trustee Armstrong OR the petitioner. Armstrong, in representing them has already issued some degree of confidence in the petitioner or he wouldn't have taken on the job. Even if he were to cease serving as the attorney, it's too late. I would also add that his representation give the petitioner the appearance of an unfair advantage because it LOOKS like the petitioner has access to knowledge about how the village works and who to talk to. I don't think that you, Ryan, would necessarily vote differently because Trustee Armstrong is the attorney but it creates the possiblity that you would be influenced. Or, if not you, other members of the Plan Commission.

Though the letter writer's tone could have been a little less angry, I agree that Trustree Armstrong made a mistake and I would not support this petitioners plan. It's too bad because maybe it was a good plan (that, I do not know) but I don't trust the process now.

Sorry Ryan.

Do you think that the Plan Commission does the scheduling? The meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month...every month. I don't think that anyone involved in the process is particularly excited about having a meeting on Valentine's Day.

Amy:

I appreciate your position but in my opinion, it's not fair to those who want to volunteer and it's not practical. If you look throughout every public body, attorneys are representing clients where their position may have a perceived influence. Speaker Madigan has a law practice, Rep. Cross, Ald. Burke...the list goes on and on. In the village, local architects, local attorneys, local citizens and local professionals who have contacts with the commissions appear every week. If we were going to significantly curtail the ability of any local professional to make his/her living, locally, you'll never get that segment of people to volunteer....which would be a shame. (Insert obligatory lawyer joke here)

And, my bet, Trustee Armstrong was merely the lawyer to help with the transaction...not with the variance request as he never appeared in support of the petition or spoke in support of it.

Why is it wrong for Trustee Armstrong to represent a peititoner's interest in a transaction (not in front of a commission or board) but its okay for former Trustee Matthews' law firm to be representing the Village, former Trustee Gardner's firm, Housal Lavinge, to be bidding on a long range plan and Trustee Thorsell and Ladesic doing work in and around the Village?

If you want competent and involved representatives, they are going to have non-severable business ties to the people and the workings of the Village. You just need to trust them, and the other people who volunteer, to do the right thing.

I agree with GE Fan. Trustee Armstrong is only representing the real estate transaction, NOT the variance requests nor special use permit requests. To complete the real estate transaction, that does not need to go before the Board or any other group. It is simply a transaction deal.

I also think that if residents got to know their Trustees, and how the Board operates, they might have a different opinion. Yes, on the outset it looks like a conflict of interest, but this is a small town and one would know that Trustee Armstrong is a fair board member. One would also know that the liaisons DO listen and report back to the Board if the Board members have a question on the conversation that took place during voting. They are not involved in the discussion unless the commission members have questions on how the Village Board operates or questions on rules and ordinances. They are not asked to give their opinion on a matter.

There have been numerous times that Board members excuse themselves from voting because of conflict of interests. It has never been a problem before.

Thanks for the clarification that Trustee Armstrong is only representing the transaction. That does ease my concern, for the most part. And I do - really, I do - understand that it's difficult to find people who are willing to give their time, energy, and skills to volunteer positions without, at some point, there being a potential conflict - or at least the appearance of a conflict. It does muddy the waters. My husband is a phyisician and in some ways I am so glad he doesn't live in the area so he can keep his professional and personal life separate. I am a school counselor and most of the time I am very glad to not be a counselor where my kids go to school. It's safer and easier to keep personal and professional separate. On the other hand, I'd love to work in the Glenbards - particularly West or South. They have really good people in their counseling departments. But would I be trading-off something ethically if I did work at West???? I'd like to think not but I'm not sure other people would agree.

I do trust some of the people I know in such elected and appointed positions. There are also some I don't trust. And I'd love to get to know all of these folks as "JustAResident" suggests. But, come on, how can all of us REALLY do that. And even if I know them, and like them personally, that doesn't mean I will trust them with some of the decisions they will have to make. I can think of one such person whom I enjoy talking with on a personal level and find him to be friendly, engaging, and interested in having dialogue. On the "professional" level, I find him completely not trustworthy and not someone I want making decisions about the direction of anything my life touches.

Anyway, I do care - probably sometimes a little too much and probably why most of us come on this BB too often when there are certainly better things to be done.

Thanks for giving your time, Ryan.

I'd love to have dinner with Peter Norton. Try to get into his head. See what's going on.

On a separate note, oddly, he and I have a mutual acquaintance. Discussed him and his views. And this is where I find major fault with small town volunteerism. According to the friend, and keep in mind this could be hearsay, Norton didn't even have thoughts of running for trustee until his friends goaded him into doing so. Though nothing swells the narrow mind quite like the phrase "you should run for this/that." From what I have witnessed as an amateur Board meeting stalker throughout the years, he is slightly less effective than Trustee Blackledge was. At least she was funny and fun to watch.

quote:

I'd love to have dinner with Peter Norton. Try to get into his head. See what's going on.

Inside Norton's head...

I hear you Amy. I hope I didn't come across as anything but casual commentary. Just my viewpoints.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:
Norton didn't even have thoughts of running for trustee until his friends goaded him into doing so.

In fairness to Trustee Norton, he has stated this publically many times. He has also stated that he was shocked that he won the position. That said, he was CEO/President of Encyclopedia Britannica. Certainly qualified to hold the post...

But does this mean he can view his constituents with contempt? He has certainly vocalized it.

quote:

Originally posted by Yossarian:
But does this mean he can view his constituents with contempt? He has certainly vocalized it.

No. No reason/excuse for that...

Ummm, Yoss, that was MY brain.

This is Norton's brain - at least over the latest "issues".

JustAResident - no worries! It's all good to air this stuff out.

Does anyone know whether the village had ever been approached by Believers Stewardship Services to purchase this property before it contracted with Montessori?

JRPotts and GEFan, I like the way you think. Maybe we could get together sometime - just the three of us - and discuss this.

Sounds good.

Yes, the village was contacted by Believers Stewardship Services to see if the village was interested in the property. Interestingly, the first call received was from Diamante Montessori (represented by Tim Armstrong, Village Trustee). Is it any wonder some folks are a bit up in arms with regards to Mr. Armstrongs ability to be objective during this process?

quote:

Is it any wonder some folks are a bit up in arms with regards to Mr. Armstrongs ability to be objective during this process?

He should resign.