A Special Meeting of the County Board, County of Peoria, Illinois, was held on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. at Peoria County Courthouse, Room 403. The meeting was called to order by Bill Prather, Chairman. MOMENT OF SILENCE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL BY THE CLERK Attendance was taken with the new Roll Call-Pro voting system and the following members of the Board were present: Baietto, Dillon, Hester, Hidden, Mayer, O'Neill, Pearson, Phelan, Polhemus, Prather, Riggenbach, Salzer, Sous, Thomas, Trumpe, Watkins and Widmer with Elsasser absent. 1. A resolution from your Health and Environmental Issues Committees recommending approval of a Lead Abatement Primary Prevention Pilot Project. Pearson moved to approve the resolution and O'Neill seconded. Sous noted that the City/County Advisory Committee, on which he and Widmer serve, has recommended instituting an impact zone around the new Glen Oak School. The City will work with the banks to offer low interest loans to remodel homes in the area. The City has asked how the County will support this impact zone; one suggestion is to offer the lead abatement program in this area. There is an issue of timing though since the zone will not be created until the school is built, and funds under the grant need to be expended. This proposal looks like a shotgun approach and assumes that old homes will have lead. He supports the resolution because it is a move forward, but this is not the only solution. The resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 17 ayes. 2. A joint resolution from your Facilities and Health and Environmental Issues Committees recommending approval of an Agreement between the Peoria County Board, the Peoria County Board of Care and Treatment, and OSF Healthcare System for the Sale of Allied Agencies Building. Baietto moved to approve the resolution and Salzer seconded. The resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 17 ayes.
Baietto asked Beth Fitch, Care and Treatment Board President and Carol Janszen, Administrator, to stand and be recognized for their efforts in accomplishing this sale. Baietto noted the sale of the building is going to provide more money for those in need and a state-of- the-art center for autism. 3. A resolution from your Management Services Committee recommending approval of salaries of the Peoria County Board, Auditor, Circuit Clerk, Coroner and Recorder of Deeds for the term commencing December 2008 November 2012. (Deferred at May 8, 2008 County Board Meeting) Phelan moved to approve the resolution and Watkins seconded. Phelan noted he was proud to be a Board Member at the Management Services meeting last Friday. Ten or eleven members were present, everyone spoke at length, but even though there was disagreement, everyone was courteous, patient and respectful. O'Neill stated that the Circuit Clerk's Office is so much larger and busier than the other offices, he does not believe it should be treated the same as the others. Sous stated that each office should be considered separately. Parity was the driving force, but parity is a labor term. These offices are not a single unit, and each office is responsible for its day to day operations. With the hiring of a chief financial officer, many duties have been shifted from the Auditor's Office. He also took into consideration the responsibilities of the Circuit Clerk's and the Coroner's Offices. Sous moved to amend the resolution to freeze the Auditor's salary as it currently stands, give the Circuit Clerk a 4% raise each of the four years but not give the Circuit Clerk the stipend and leave the Recorder's and Coroner's raises as they are in the resolution. Baietto seconded. Sous noted that he looked at the offices, and his decision has nothing to do with the individuals in the offices. The amount of work in the Circuit Clerk's and Coroner's Offices warrants the highest salaries. Thomas stated that he is not in favor of the proposed amendment, but is in favor of the original resolution. Parity has been used to avoid the impression of partisanship. Dillon stated he is not a member of the Management Services Committee, but he attended the meeting. Every concern being discussed now was discussed at the meeting, so he is not in favor of the amendment. Baietto stated that objective numbers should be used: the amount of money handled, number of employees supervised and number of statutory duties. The majority of the Board does not believe in parity, and yet says it will vote to make all the offices the same. Friendship cannot enter into the formula; it only makes sense to break with parity. It only makes sense to give more to those who do more. Those who do less should get paid less. It is not a prudent use of taxpayers'
money to give a $10,000 raise in three years to an office which has had 75% of its duties taken away. Widmer stated he agrees with freezing the Auditor's salary and giving 4% raises to the other offices, even though he had proposed raises of 3.75% because of the economy. Trumpe stated that as representatives, the Board must look at the future and guard our money. The more rational approach is to freeze the Auditor's salary, especially since it is not certain what the office will do. Thomas stated that parity was used because no one could come up with a better idea. He asked how do you decide how many more responsibilities the Circuit Clerk's Office has in relation to other offices? The Board has data now, but must still figure out how to use it. Looking at the future is right, but it should have been done four years ago. There is only a vague idea as to how much work is done in all the offices. Thomas stated he will support the original resolution because there is no formula. Sous stated that if the responsibilities of these offices are vague, then all the raises being considered should be challenged. His analysis was based on the data presented to him. Mayer stated that he opposes the amendment if the theory is the Board does not know the status of the Auditor's Office. If the Board is going to do that kind of review, it should look at having an appointed coroner and professional medical examiner and look at why the County has a separate recorder. If the Board does not also look at these offices, then he does believe it is partisan politics. Hidden asked whether the duties of these offices are set by statute. Mr. Atkins replied that some duties are statutory, but some duties have been given by the Board. So the statutes are not a complete answer. Phelan stated that he cannot believe the Board is winging it on something this serious. Eight years ago when the Board got involved in strategic planning, everyone was going in different directions including the elected officials. The Board started building teamwork, and Mr. Sonnemaker worked with the Board as did Mrs. Van Winkle to make things more efficient. Her office is now doing what it should be doing which is auditing. In some members' minds, the office is already eliminated and it is not. The Board does not even question some elected officials, but puts others under a microscope. He does believe it is partisan, and he strongly opposes the amendment. Thomas clarified that he was not accusing anyone of not knowing the duties of these offices, but there is more to it than job descriptions. More study is needed with a lot more thought. Polhemus stated that the deadline to set these salaries is May 30th and asked why the Board waited this late. He then asked if the salaries must be set for four years. Mr. Atkins replied that the amounts for the next four years must be decided by May 30th. Widmer stated he hoped Phelan is
wrong about partisanship. The only major changes have occurred in the Auditor's Office, and he asked Mr. Urich to list the changes. Mr. Urich replied that as part of the finance reorganization, Office Services were transferred to IT. Certain accounting functions in both the Treasurer's Office and the Auditor's Office were transferred to the Finance Department, and IMRF was transferred to County Administration. This leaves the Auditor to fulfill the duties proscribed by state statute. The Recorder's Office has additional duties concerning rental properties, and the Circuit Clerk's Office has additional duties with regard to collections. Also, the Coroner is working to contract a forensic pathologist. The changes in the Auditor's Office were designed so that the office could spend more time performing audits which is a statutory duty. Baietto stated that he assumed the use of the word "partisan" referred to him. He opined that the public is sick of bickering among parties and partisan politics. He does not look at people as either republicans or democrats; he looks at the problems and his record will stand behind him. He thinks that more counties do not have auditors than do. Mayer apologized to Baietto if he thought he was directing an accusation of partisan politics at him. He knows well that Baietto does not use partisan lenses in viewing Board policies. He believes, however, it is partisan in the sense he thinks some people are targeting a democrat office for elimination and not looking at other offices. Phelan concurred with Mayer, and stated he was not pointing a finger at Baietto. Riggenbach stated that he looks at numbers on a daily basis. He believes that the Management Services meeting was very productive, and it made him proud to be a member of the Board. The amendment troubles him because of the elimination of the Circuit Clerk's stipend. The stipend was a bi-partisan decision to recognize the extra work in that office. Trumpe asked whether she could move to divide the amendment and consider the elements separately. Mr. Atkins stated he believed she could make such a motion. She could also move to amend the amendment. Trumpe moved to amend the amendment to strike the elimination of the Circuit Clerk's stipend. Phelan asked that the maker of the motion of the first amendment temporarily withdraw his motion so that Trumpe could move to include the stipend. O'Neill left and returned to the meeting. Mayer stated that Board could have a voice vote to table the amendment, and then Trumpe could make a motion for a first amendment. Phelan stated that he wants a clean record and does not want anyone to be confused. Prather asked the Board if it wanted to recognize Mrs. Van Winkle which was allowed without objection. Mrs. Van Winkle stated she
feels her work ethic is being slandered. She is going to perform the work the statues require of her office. The former auditor had so many duties laid on him by the Board that he couldn't audit. She plans to prevent fraud. Mr. O'Connor stated that this process needs to be changed. What has been happening the last several weeks is ridiculous. The elected officials work for the people of the County, get along and are proud of it. The elected officials look to see how they can work together. He is proud to work for the County because it is professional. Mr. Atkins advised the Board that based on Robert's Rules of Order and how the Board has modified those rules, it is proper for the movant and second of the amendment to withdraw their motion and second. Mayer's suggestion to table is also proper, as is a motion to divide. Sous stated that he would withdraw his motion with the assumption that Trumpe would make her motion. Baietto also withdrew his second. Trumpe stated that in the spirit of the discussion just had, she was not going to make her motion. Baietto then moved to freeze the Auditor's salary at this year's amount and Sous seconded. The amendment failed by a roll call vote of 11 nays and 6 ayes, with Baietto, Riggenbach, Salzer, Sous, Trumpe and Widmer voting aye. The Chair then called for a vote on the original motion. The resolution passed by a roll call vote of 12 ayes and 5 nays, with Baietto, Mayer, Sous, Trumpe and Widmer voting nay. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous voice vote.