All U-46 School Board Members named as suspects in crime – | Illinois Leaks

The Elgin Police Department was called by us and arrived shortly after the call. There were half a dozen officers there at one time, and eventually a call was made to the Kane County State’s Attorney, who after research, advised the PD to complete a criminal report naming the board members  as suspects, and forwarding it to his office. This process took over 2 hours to complete.

Section 2.06 (g) of the Illinois Open Meetings Act makes public comment a right, at all public meetings (with reasonable rules).

The U-46 School Board held three meetings yesterday, October 19, 2015. The first meeting started at 4 p.m. and consisted of a finance committee meeting with the meeting notice posted, but no posted agenda at the building that we could see. This meeting included public comment time.

The second meeting, called for the purpose of a closed session for student discipline and other things started at 5:15 p.m. There was a notice posted, but no agenda. There was also no public comment session, in violation of law. All closed meetings must be called from an open meeting – and return to open meeting after the closed portion. No exceptions.

The third meeting started at 7 p.m. and had its meeting notice and agenda posted with a public comment session.

All agendas were on the school’s website, but only the 7 p.m. meeting was posted at the school building.

Read the entire article by clicking on the following:  All U-46 School Board Members named as suspects in crime – | Illinois Leaks

Governor Rauner says he can hold as many secret meetings on public time as he wants | Bleader | Chicago Reader

Governor Bruce Rauner believes he can hold secret meetings on public property.

He also maintains that taxpayers have no right to know who he's consulted, even long after the conferences are over and policies have been enacted as a result.

A lawyer for Rauner staked out those positions in a letter last week to the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

It was submitted as part of a battle with the Reader over whether copies of the governor's past calendar and meeting schedule should be released to the public. I requested the records in May under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, but Christina McClernon, an assistant general counsel for Rauner, says he has the right to keep them private.

"The Governor's Office was under no obligation to provide the requested appointment calendars to Mr. Dumke because these documents are not 'public records' under FOIA," she wrote in a July 16 letter to the Public Access Bureau, a division of the attorney general's office that rules on FOIA disputes.

If the governor's position is upheld, it would be a setback for anyone who thinks taxpayers should get to know who has access to public officials conducting business with public funds. The letter suggests the calendars and meeting schedules of every other public official in Illinois could also be kept secret.

I'm writing about the back and forth to keep the legal dispute open and public.

During his $57 million campaign for governor, Rauner promised to bring a new level of openness to state government, painting incumbent Pat Quinn as a product of the corrupt Democratic machine that conducted public business in backroom deals. "This is about transparency and accountability," Rauner declared.

Since taking office, though, Rauner has worked to conceal how he operates.

He's made good on vows to fight for a probusiness "turnaround" agenda that would tighten the rules for union organizing, worker's compensation, and filing lawsuits. Since Democrats have rejected the proposals, Rauner has refused to work with house speaker Michael Madigan and senate president John Cullerton on a budget deal, resulting in a state shutdown during which the governor has remained largely out of public view.

At the same time, he has refused to disclose who has access to his office, let alone what he's working on. In some cases, he also won't say who's being compensated with taxpayer money to do work for the state.

In May I submitted a FOIA request intended to see who has Rauner's ear. Specifically, I asked for copies of his daily schedule and meeting calendar from his inauguration in January through early May.

The governor's office eventually provided copies of the schedules, but more than 150 appointments were blacked out—an average of more than one secret meeting a day, as Ben Joravsky and I wrote last month.

An attorney for Rauner argued that the redactions were justified because the information was "preliminary" and protected by attorney-client privilege, two loopholes in the FOIA frequently invoked by officials to avoid releasing records.

We then asked the public access bureau to weigh in, arguing that citizens have a clear right to know what the governor is up to. We stressed that we never asked what was said at the meetings—only who was in on them—so it was illogical to claim that releasing the information would reveal confidential discussions.

But last week the governor's office responded that the public doesn't have the right to see his daily schedules in any form.

In a five-page letter, McClernon—Rauner's assistant general counsel and freedom of information officer—cited old cases from federal court, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in arguing that the governor's schedules and calendars are off limits. She also claimed that releasing the documents could violate the governor's security, even long after the events are over.

But the letter also indicated that the governor simply doesn't want the public to know who has access to him. The calendars "reveal the identities of people with whom he has met and consulted and thus can be read to determine the substance and direction of his judgment and mental processes," McClernon wrote.

The arguments have a familiar ring. Five years ago I went through a similar battle with lawyers for the city of Chicago over schedules for then-mayor Richard M. Daley. They argued that releasing them would be too "burdensome" and could endanger the mayor.

But the attorney general's office eventually rejected those claims and determined that the mayor's schedule and meeting calendar were indeed public records. "The public has a legitimate interest in learning of its Mayor's public meetings held in City Hall," wrote an assistant attorney general.

I cited the ruling in a lawsuit against the city over its FOIA denials. City officials now cough up Mayor Rahm Emanuel's schedule when asked.

Yet Rauner's administration is fighting over more than copies of his meeting calendar. Previously it's refused to disclose which legislators attended policy planning meetings.

And last month I requested a list of private-sector law firms hired to do state work—that is, firms paid with taxpayer money. McClernon refused to provide that information either, saying it too was protected by attorney-client privilege.

Is the governor really claiming that the public doesn't have the right to know how taxpayer funds are spent? Public contracts are among the classic and longstanding examples of "information regarding the affairs of government" meant to be disclosed under the Illinois FOIA.

The public access bureau will have a chance to weigh in on both FOIA matters in the coming weeks.

So far, we know this much: Rauner is being transparent about what he thinks of open government.

Governor Rauner says he can hold as many secret meetings on public time as he wants | Bleader | Chicago Reader

Public Notice required on all matters being voted.

Attorney General Rules Rutland Violated Open Meetings Law

The Illinois Attorney General's Office ruled Friday that the Rutland Township Board violated the State's Open Meetings Act in October when it passed a controversial Investment Policy Ordinance last October and simultaneously replaced Supervisor Margaret Sanders as the Township Investment Officer with a single vote.  The Attorney General said the Board should hold another vote about replacing Sanders for investments.
The First Electric Newspaper complained Rutland violated the OMA when its Oct. 14 agenda listed a vote to adopt the investment  policy but not one on picking a new person to execute it.  Board Attorney Ron Roeser of Elgin cited court decisions that  "germane" action doesn't need a separate notice.  However AG's attorneys agreed with FEN that an Open Meetings amendment last year outdated the old cases and now requires public notice "of all matters upon which a public body would be taking final action."
Supervising Attorney Josh Jones wrote, "The appointment of Trustee [Fred] Bulmahn was not a necessary result of adopting the Ordinance," continuing, "We agree [with FEN] that 'the two are clearly separate and distinct matters and should have been so noticed.'"
At last report, Rutland Township has enough money saved up to run for about a year and half  without any new funds.  While some townships in Illinois have written investment policies, FEN's been unable to locate any other with an investment officer different from the Supervisor.
Earlier this week in a bitter budget battle, trustees cut Assessor Jan Siers' requested new budget back from $186,000 to $162,000, saying a roughly 10 percent increase from the past one was enough.  Siers argued that in a quadrennial reassessment year it wasn't.  "I'm not going to cut salaries," she said.  The Township budget this year was approved at $326,000 and the Road District's at $535,000.

Posted by First Electric Newspaper LLC at 10:25 AM No comments : Links to this post

FirstElectricNewspaper

Gov. Rauner, who campaigned on transparency, now secretive | Belleville News-Democrat Belleville News-Democrat

 

 

By Kerry Lester and Sara Burnett

The Associated Press

When running for office, future Gov. Bruce Rauner regularly pledged to bring unprecedented transparency to state government as part of the Republican’s campaign to turn around the Illinois economy.

But now, as the clock ticks down on the General Assembly’s spring session, the former private equity executive is holding his cards especially close to his vest in tense negotiations with Democratic leaders over the pro-business reforms he wants in exchange for consenting to their demands on how to close a $6 billion budget gap.

For example:

▪  Most talks are being held by special working groups, but the meeting times, locations and topics are secret. Lawmakers involved say Rauner’s staff has demanded they don’t reveal what was discussed.

▪  Rauner has so far refused to let anyone see copies of legislation outlining his desired reforms, though he has publicly assured reporters the legislation exists, and more information is coming soon. On top of that, his legal staff has rejected freedom of information requests seeking the information.

▪  Rauner’s staff has consistently taken more than one month to provide copies of his non-public schedule in response to requests …

Read the entire article by clicking on he following:  Gov. Rauner, who campaigned on transparency, now secretive | Belleville News-Democrat Belleville News-Democrat

Rauner transparency clouded by secret meetings

 

SPRINGFIELD — During his campaign for governor, Gov. Bruce Rauner said he wanted to oversee the most transparent administration in history.

But three months into his term, Rauner's team won't reveal who is involved in a series of high-level talks about some of the governor's most prized pet issues, ranging from his controversial plan to allow local right-to-work laws to an overhaul of state spending.

"They are private meetings," Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said late last week. "They are private discussions that we're keeping confidential to protect the process."

Rauner's closed-door approach to governing began emerging last week when he told reporters about the existence of what he called "working groups."

He said the groups of lawmakers and unnamed administration officials were working on various pieces of legislation with an eye on making them public later in the spring legislative session.

"I think there are seven or eight working groups. We hope to get some bills ready to be introduced in the coming few weeks," Rauner said.

Asked  for more specifics about the groups, Kelly said, "We're not confirming what has been discussed or anything like that right now."

Kelly also wouldn't answer questions about who is involved in each group, when they are meeting and what subjects are being discussed.

"We're only saying what the governor has said. That's all I can give you right now," Kelly

Read the entire article by clicking on the following:  Rauner transparency clouded by secret meetings

Sunshine Week: Huge backlog hampers Freedom of Information appeals in Illinois - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

SPRINGFIELD — After the scandal that sent Gov. Rod Blagojevich to prison in 2012, legislators adopted a raft of reforms that included creating a referee to intervene when bureaucrats reject citizens’ requests for government records…..

The office can claim more than 80 percent of its cases closed, but the AP found that nearly 1,200 of the open cases have gone unanswered for at least two years.

The numbers concern legislators who pushed for the added layer of appeal. A Freedom of Information advocate says the delay means denial for citizens counting on prompt government information — and who believe the records are illegally being kept secret.

“The intent was to facilitate responses to the public at large seeking information,” said Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat. “If you have (the appeals office) overburdened, that doesn’t carry out the spirit of the law.”

Ann Spillane, chief of staff to Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan, acknowledged the backlog but defended the bureau’s work: Counting disputes over the open-meetings law, 85 percent of the pleas it handles have been settled.

In 2013, the public access counselor received a monthly average of 285 appeals on FOIA and open meetings in 2013; this year, it’s 349, according to the attorney general’s office.

The appeals are not just the domain of snooping journalists or buttoned-down law firms. Four of 5 come from individual taxpayers — 2,320 of the total that are unresolved.

The bureau has 10 lawyers and is interviewing to hire as many as five more, but turnover is constant, Spillane said. And because of the budget crisis, even with a growing backlog, the attorney general will focus on preserving the budget instead of asking for more.

“It’s not our goal for anyone to wait,” Spillane said. “In a perfect world, we would turn these around, each of them, as quickly as we can, but we’re dealing with a very high volume.”…

Read the entire article by clicking on the following:  Sunshine Week: Huge backlog hampers Freedom of Information appeals in Illinois - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

Bill eliminating local government notices in newspapers fails - News - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL

 

bill that would have taken legal notices out of the newspaper will not be making its way to the House floor.

Rep. Joe Sosnowski's House Bill 261 would eliminate the requirement for local governments to post public notices in local newspapers. Instead, it would require governments to post notices only on their websites.

The bill failed in committee Thursday by a 5-6 vote.

Sosnowski, a Republican from Rockford, said he wasn't discouraged by the committee's decision.

"This was an initial litmus test at the committee level," he said. "I think, generally, the committee was open to the legislation. We've just got some fine-tuning to do."

The state's nearly 7,000 units of local governments are currently required to print notices of public hearings in the local paper. Other notices are required by law as well, such as from land developers.

Newspapers are legally required to upload these notices to a centralized website, publicnoticeillinois.com.

Sosnowski said he introduced the bill to save taxpayers money, but opponents said the savings were negligible and that government transparency was more important.

Rep. Sam Yingling, D-Round Lake Beach, said he thought it was hypocritical for local governments to say this was a cost-saving measure while fighting other bills requiring similar measures.

"If they want to say that they can't post things on their website because it costs too much money, then the same principle applies here," he said. "So I don't see a cost savings for the local governmental bodies."

Josh Sharp, a lobbyist for the Illinois Press Association who spoke against the bill, said he was glad it failed.

"I was really glad to see that legislators were not ready to turn over informing the public to units of local governments, specifically their websites," he said. "They're tasked right now with posting three different things online, and they don't seem to be doing a very good job at all."

Sharp said the three postings local governments are required to put online include notices of public meetings, agendas and minutes from the meetings. But according to a Citizen Advocacy Center study, the governments only complied with posting notices of the meetings 73 percent of the time, agendas 57 percent of the time and meeting minutes 48 percent of the time.

Sharp said this shows newspapers should stay involved in the process.

"You do not get that same kind of check and balance with someone posting it on a government website and someone taking a look for it," he said. "It's not nearly the same thing."

Rep. Margo McDermed, R-Mokena, said she was for the bill because most people get their information on the Internet now anyway.

Bill eliminating local government notices in newspapers fails - News - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL

Boone County panel probed for possible Open Meetings Act violation - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

To read earlier postings on this subject see:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2015/02/did-boone-countys-ad-hoc-committee.html or to see BCJ’s editorial go to:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2015/02/bcj-editorial-on-boone-county-ad-hoc.html

By Ben Stanley
Rockford Register Star
Posted Feb. 26, 2015 at 12:06 PM
Updated Feb 26, 2015 at 8:22 PM

BELVIDERE — The Illinois attorney general's office is investigating an ad hoc committee in Boone County for possible violation of the Open Meetings Act.

The Boarding and Breeding Ordinance Advisory Committee, which is reviewing possible changes to regulations governing boarding and breeding kennels, secretly met Jan. 14 under instructions from a County Board member.

"Please remember this is an advisory ad hoc committee, which means we do not have to post public agendas or open our meeting up for the public to attend," Boone County Board member Denny Ellingson wrote in a Jan. 7 email, which the Rockford Register Star obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

"Please do not tell others about where or when these meetings are set for, so that we can meet without interference. When we get our work done, the public will get a chance to review our thoughts and decisions as our proposed ordinances will back through the ZSA and the PZB before the County Board gets a chance to adopt them."

The meeting was carried out behind closed doors. The Open Meetings Act says citizens have the right to attend the meetings of public legislative, executive, administrative and advisory bodies and should be given advance notice of those meetings.

Boone County State's Attorney Michelle Courier said it's unclear whether the committee falls under the regulation of the Open Meetings Act.

"It’s a gray area as to whether or not they should be subject to it," she said. "This is not the County Board members (meeting) or members that were entirely appointed by the County Board."

The committee has seven members — a veterinarian, two animal-welfare advocates, two community residents, one breeder and one kennel operator — and only one, Ellingson, is an elected official. Committee members joined at the request of County Board Chairman Bob Walberg, which further blurs the lines.

For the committee to have violated the Open Meetings Act, the attorney general's office would have to determine that the committee qualifies as a "public body," which state statute defines as "all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the state, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this state, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue."

Courier received complaints after the meeting that an Open Meetings violation may have occurred. She said Ellingson didn't ask her for legal advice before the meeting convened. "So it was my recommendation (to the committee) simply to publish the agenda, and they’ve been doing it since."

If the committee is found in violation, the attorney general's office can issue either an informal opinion, which is a nonbinding recommendation to correct practices, or a formal opinion, which could include fines and other punishments.  ….

- Read  more by going to: http://www.rrstar.com/article/20150226/NEWS/150229528/0/SEARCH#sthash.7V6HGoJl.dpuf

Local Papers Oppose Rep Sosnowski’s legislation on public notices

 

 

 

 

Meet John Doe: Keep public notices in print | The Rock River Times

By Paul Gorski
Columnist

According to “Sosnowski calls for public notices to be pulled from papers” by Shane Nicholson, State Representative Joe Sosnowski (R-Rockford/Belvidere) wants to “end the publication of public and government notices in newspapers.”

I strongly oppose that ill-advised plan. Public, especially government, notices of meetings, hearings and other important events should be posted in local newspapers as it is in the public interest to do so. We cannot have a free, open, deliberative government unless we know when our public bodies are meeting to discuss important issues.

As Nicholson’s article points out, many governments do not properly post public notices online, and the public does not appear to go to the sites that have these notices. One sure way of hiding or burying a public notice is to publish it only online.

One benefit of having notices posted in newspapers is that each newspaper prints public notices in a consistent manner; readers do not have to learn how to navigate the newspaper to find the notices, like they might have to do with a variety of different government websites.

Sosnowski states his plan is “Just trying to move us into the 20th century. Internet has been around for a while. Maybe next year we can work on the 21st.” I do not buy that argument at all. By that reasoning, people should stop buying printed Bibles and read the good book on their Kindles. While some people may prefer an e-reading device for this use, I’m pretty sure printed Bible sales are still strong. I am also fairly certain that most churches prefer printed Bibles. Get important information out in as many ways as you can.

People are divided on how they consume news and information. Many people still read print newspapers and books; other read the same content on websites. Others only frequent social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook. More and more people are using their smartphones and tablets as their primary Internet-access device, and many government websites are not mobile friendly. You might save money on printing costs, but then pay big bucks for updating your website, and then be forced to pay staff to monitor, post, and reply to posts on social media outlets.

Sosnowski’s plan to stop printing public notices in newspapers is shortsighted. Newspapers provide a standard, portable format for sharing government information. If budgets allow, post the same information on websites and social media. Sharing public information on more, rather than fewer, media outlets is in the public interest and critical to encouraging the public to engage government.

Paul Gorski (paul@paulgorski.com) is a Cherry Valley Township resident who also authors the Tech-Friendly column seen in this newspaper.

The above is from:  Meet John Doe: Keep public notices in print | The Rock River Times

Editorial:

News Coverage:

 

BCJ Editorial on Boone County “ad hoc” subcommittee

An easier to read copy is shown after the photocopy.

 

When a “Duck” Is a “Duck”

Since the Illinois Department of Agriculture examined the Boone County animal shelter a few years ago, the
place has been an embarrassment. Members of the Boone County Board, residents of the county and some from
adjoining counties are outraged that county government would treat feral animals in such a way. The same people
are also angered at the inability of county government to define or to outlaw “puppy mills.”

In response to this failure, members of county government created an “Ad-Hoc Committee for Boarding and
Breeding Facilities.” This path is dangerous because the group is closely allied with county government, the group
wants to amend county code sheltered from public “interference” and they are near to violating the Illinois Open
Meetings Act.

Creation of the Committee occurred when the chairman of the County Board appointed people to serve without
County Board approval. To her credit, the county state’s attorney advised the founders of the Committee to abide
by the open meetings act and to provide public notice of their meetings. However, material obtained by The
Journal suggests that open meetings and public disclosure was not their intention.

The document obtained arose over the name, Denny Ellingson, a District #1 legislator on the Boone County
Board. The date of this document is January 7, 2015.

In the second paragraph, the author wrote:
“Please remember, this is an advisory ad-hoc committee which means we do not have to post public agendas or
open our meetings for the public to attend. Please do not tell others about where or when these meetings are set
forth so that we can meet without interference. When we get our work done the public will get a chance to review
our thoughts and decisions as our proposed ordinances will back through the ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals) and
the PZB (Planning, Zoning and Building committee of the Boone County Board) before the County Board gets as
chance to adopt them.”

These are stunning admissions. The number of questionable and potentially illegal admissions noted here
reaches double digits.

The author said the group was advisory but without guidelines to govern the group it is questionable just what
the Committee is, other than an extension of county government. The conclusion that the group does not need to
conform to provide notice of their meetings is contrary to an opinion offered by the state’s attorney. This advice in
the letter violates the “spirit” of the law but we have often noted, ethics are for losers. If the Committee does not
need to provide formal notice of their meetings they then might conclude that they need not conform to the Open
Meetings Act. This could be problematic because the County Board chairman appointed the members to serve and
also because of the Committee’s tight connection to county government.

Further, the author asked that members, “Please do not tell others where or when these meetings are set.”
Really? It is an arguable point but, is not this a request of the members to violate Illinois law? This language
appearing over the signature of an elected official is a damaging admission that requires explanation.

There’s more. The author continues claiming, because of this conclusion, the Committee can avoid the
“interference” that the public might create. It is presumed the author would include the press as an objectionable
“interference.” Asking members not to tell anyone of future meetings to avoid “interference” is an insult.

The author assumes that any activity to emerge from their meetings will be blindly approved by the ZBA and
the PZB as a prelude to being lamely enacted by the County Board. This level of confidence is enhanced by moves
made by County Board leadership to pack the panel with those that are like-minded. The hubris of this policy is
beyond belief and should be of concern to all who voted for these “alleged” legislators.

It is uncertain if any members of the Committee voiced concern over what was written and it would be
disappointing if no one questioned the policy. But, perhaps this egotism is to be expected when people are
appointed to serve the needs of the community without needing any further approval.

This activity confirms a position voiced in a previous Editorial presented here. Some elected officials believe
that their view and views of their friends are the only views that need to be heard. Some leaders appoint friends to
do their bidding and to run a government to please a singular view while ignoring anyone with a different point-of-
view.

It appears the current leader sees the Board as an extension of himself and he has appointed those to committees
that compliment his singular view.

The effort of this ad-hoc committee is not designed to resolve a problem in county government through greater
openness, the stated goal is to keep their activity out of public sight. It is apparent that an open vision of public
policy is sorely lacking in Boone County government. But for a couple members, the current County Board is
populated by “yes-men” who are willing to do the bidding of the leader.

Another example of the impact of this closed policy was found in a recent change in position expressed by the
Boone County regional planning commission regarding a proposed text amendment. This change did not occur
because of amended language or altered intent, the change occurred because of a change in membership on the
commission. Is anyone truly surprised?

The Boone County Journal is available free of cost at merchants across the county and on line at:  http://www.boonecountyjournal.com/news/2015/Boone-County-News-02-20-15.pdf#page=1

 

To read the email quoted in the editorial, go to the bottom of the following Boone County Watchdog posting:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2015/02/did-boone-countys-ad-hoc-committee.html

Did Boone County’s ad hoc committee break the Illinois Open Meetings Act?

On January 14, 2015  Boone County’s  Breeding/Boarding Ordinance Advisory Committee held an unannounced meeting which did not comply with the requirements of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

Below  are the minutes from the November 2014 meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Building Committee. As shown on page 3 of these minutes, Mr. Ellingson, chairman of this special committee, was advised to consult the States Attorney concerning whether  the ad hoc committee is subject to the Illinois Open Meetings Act (by Mr.Johnson) and advised by County Administrator, K. Terrinoni, that it  “should be subject to the Open Meetings Act”

 

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Despite these warnings, Mr Ellingson sent out the following email to committee members on January 7, 2015.  (This email was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Mr. Zanter)

Take special note of the second paragraph in which Mr. Ellingson states that an ad hoc committee does not have to adhere to the Open Meeting Act and additionally asks that committee members to:  “Please do not tell others about where or when these meetings are set for so we can meet without interference”

The question now-- was the January 14 meeting illegal and should Boone County be cited by the Illinois Attorney General?

Better Government Association updates payroll, pension databases

July 9, 2014

• Access salary, retirement data on 1.5 million public-sector workers, retirees in Illinois

Staff Report

CHICAGO — Want to know how much government employees are being paid in Illinois? Or how much public-sector retirees are collecting in pension benefits? Or who stands to collect a taxpayer-subsidized pension some day? Then visit the BGA’s free “Payroll,” “Pension” and “Pension Outlook” databases — all newly updated with the most recently available information and, in the case of the Payroll Database, greatly expanded.

What’s more, new search functions make it easier for visitors to search by name, agency and salary range.

They are all available through the BGA’s home page, www.bettergov.org, under the “Resources” heading, or at the following direct links:

• http://www.bettergov.org/payroll/;

• http://www.bettergov.org/pension/; and

• http://www.bettergov.org/vestedpension/.

All told, about 1.5 million government employees and retirees are included in the databases.

“Taxpayers shell out a lot of money for government in Illinois, and a large part of those tax dollars go toward salaries and benefits,” said BGA President and CEO Andy Shaw. “We created these databases so people can see where their tax money is going — and so taxpayers can judge whether public agencies are being fair and frugal in their personnel spending.”

The Payroll Database was expanded considerably, now with nearly 450 public agencies, and about 650,000 public-sector workers. That’s up from roughly 100 public agencies in the database’s last iteration.

The Payroll Database also now includes payrolls for all 102 Illinois counties, and nearly every municipality in the six-county Chicago region.

The Pension and Pension Outlook databases continue to offer retirement information from the largest public-sector pension funds, including those covering retirees and current and former employees from the City of Chicago, State of Illinois, Cook County, Chicago Transit Authority, and other agencies.

These databases complement the BGA’s other web offerings, including the “FBI Files” portal, which includes FBI files on deceased government-related officials with ties to Illinois. That database was recently updated as well. It can be accessed at the following link — http://www.bettergov.org/resources/the_fbi_files.aspx — or through the BGA’s home page.

The Better Government Association is a Chicago-based nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group that works for integrity, transparency and accountability in government by exposing corruption and inefficiency; identifying and advocating effective public policy; and engaging and mobilizing the public to achieve authentic and responsible reform.

Bloomington’s Alderman Stearns alleges Open Meetings Act violation

By Rachel Wells | rwells@pantagraph.com

BLOOMINGTON — A city alderman is alleging her fellow City Council members violated state transparency laws by discussing public business — including major departmental changes — behind closed doors.

Ward 4 Alderman Judy Stearns on Dec. 6 filed a request for review with the Illinois attorney general’s public access counselor, which has since asked for more information from the city.

She alleged the council during a Nov. 15 closed session discussed issues not exempt from the state’s Open Meetings Act, including broad discussions of general hiring practices, a sought-after “culture change” and “why it is critical that the Council be totally united on the changes to be made, including the comment by our City Manager (David Hales) that a 5 to 4 vote is not acceptable.”

Read the entire article by clicking on the following:  Alderman Stearns alleges Open Meetings Act violation

A special thanks to City Barbs (http://www.citybarbs.com/) for this item.

How much does an individual state employee make?

Go the the following website:  http://accountability.illinois.gov/Employees/FAQ.aspx

Obama Cabinet Flunks Disclosure Test With 19 in 20 Ignoring Law - Bloomberg

 

Nineteen of 20 cabinet-level agencies disobeyed the law requiring the disclosure of public information: The cost of travel by top officials. In all, just eight of the 57 federal agencies met Bloomberg’s request for those documents within the 20-day window required by the Act.

“When it comes to implementation of Obama’s wonderful transparency policy goals, especially FOIA policy in particular, there has been far more ‘talk the talk’ rather than ‘walk the walk,’” said Daniel Metcalfe, director of the Department of Justice’s office monitoring the government’s compliance with FOIA requests from 1981 to 2007

Click on the following for more details:  Obama Cabinet Flunks Disclosure Test With 19 in 20 Ignoring Law - Bloomberg

New Changes to Open Meetings Act beginning January 1, 2013

Note several of these changes are merely codifying decisions previously made by the Attorney General’s Office.  The entire text is available at:  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=4687&GAID=11&LegID=64490&SpecSess=&Session=

 

CLICK ON THE PHOTOCOPY TO ENLARGE:

 

What’s this $176,000, anyway?

Written by Bob Balgemann

BELVIDERE – Boone County’s finance, taxation and salaries committee found itself with $176,000 on the books and no one being sure where it came from.

The revelation occurred at the May 8 meeting, near the end of an audit report on the 2011-12 fiscal year, which ended Nov. 30, 2011.

It was pointed out that the money was in the “collections account,” where property tax money is kept. “It’s on the books,” county
Treasurer Curt Newport said. “I don’t know why it’s there.”

He said he didn’t know where it came from, either, adding, “I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t just leave it there. I have no plans to do anything with it.”

Committee member Laura Guerin-Hunt thought it probably was the result of “a lot of little mistakes and issues. There are a lot of different ways that it could get into that account.”

She said she thought the money should be divided among the various taxing districts. But that would bring up the question of “how to you determine who gets what?”

Sikich LLC representative Carla Paschal suggested an opinion be sought from State’s Attorney Michelle Courier, as to what should be done with the money.

Meanwhile, Newport said he would continue to report the money to the auditor on a yearly basis “until a judge or the state’s attorney tells me to do something with it.”

The above was taken from the Belvidere Republican’s on line version:  http://www.belvideredailyrepublican.net/news/news-briefs-road-work-means-demise-of-boone-county-family-restaurant/

Belvidere Township Annual Meeting and Mr. Mattison’s challenge

 

There were many speakers at the meeting. With a  3 minute time limit few speakers may have got their points across.  Mr. Mattison appears very deliberate --he wanted more transparency at the township and the trustees should sign a transparency promise from the Illinois Policy Institute.

4/10/12

Belvidere Township Annual Meeting

Re:  Statement

Thank you Patrick and Trustees:

I was happy to see in your response to my FOI request that Belvidere Township is committed to transparency, to quote..."Belvidere Township is committed to transparency in government and to full compliance with the Freedom of Information Act."

I believe a major part of the Belvidere Township Publics' concerns are transparency--there are many other issues too--I do not have the time to list them but would be happy to review them with everyone when time permits.  But, for now, I pose this question to all the Belvidere Township Elected officials relative to transparency...

Would you sign a "TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT PLEDGE"?  This is authorized by the Illinois Policy Institute, an esteemed Illinois organization fostering openness in government.  Please allow me the time to read it.

 

"I ___________________, believe that Illinois citizens deserve a more transparent and accountable government, with easy access to information about how the government spends taxpayer dollars.

Transparency legislation has served as a successful reform in numerous villages, cities, counties and states across the nation, as well as the federal level.  Therefore, I will join the effort in bringing transparency to the State of Illinois in Belvidere Township and pledge to the taxpayers I  will:

Support any and all efforts to implement greater transparency at all levels of government:

Support any and all efforts to implement full, comprehensive transparency in government, requiring open budget books on one, easy-access, searchable and user-friendly website.  This website would include all expenditures, including contracts and grants, and would provide details of payments, their purpose and who authorized the payment;

Engage in full disclosure of all my spending decisions and make revenue and expenditure date as open, transparent, and publicly accessible as possible.

Signed_____________________________________ Date__________

Witness____________________________________ Date__________

 

 

 

Patrick B. Mattison

Illinois Policy Institute gives Boone County’s website a very low score—an “F”?

Boone County scores a 38.1% on Local Transparency Audit

\

 

Transparency Grading Rubric

Illinois Policy Institute's Local Transparency Project Grading Rubric A - 90% and Above B - between 80% and 89.99% C - between 70% and 79.99% D - between 60% and 69.99% F - 59.99% and lower Out of a possible 100 points. 1. Elected & Administrative Officials (10 points) Sub Category: Elected Officials (4 points) 1 point for name of elected officials 1.5 points for email or web form to contact elected officials 1.5 points for phone number to contact elected officials Sub Category: Senior Elected Official (1 point) .25 point for name of elected official .375 point for email or web form of elected official .375 point for phone number of elected official Sub Category: Administrators (4 points) 1 point for names of administrators in each department 1.5 points for email or web form to contact administrators 1.5 points for phone number to administrators Sub Category Senior Administrator: (1 point) .25 point for name of senior administrator .375 point for email or web form of senior administrator .375 point for phone number of senior administrator 2. Meeting Information (10 points) Sub Category: Future Meeting Calendar (2.5 points) At least 1 year on regular dates Sub Category: Meeting Agendas (2.5 points) Is the next meeting’s agenda online or do they regularly post agenda’s online prior to meetings? Sub Category: Meeting Board Packets (2.5 points) .5 point per each of last 5 years online. Only 70% credit if documents are not searchable Sub Category: Meeting Minutes (2.5 points) .5 point per each of last 5 years online. Only 70% credit if documents are not searchable 3. Freedom of Information Act (10 Points) Sub Category: Freedom of Information Act Page (7 points) 1 point for address to submit FOIA 1.5 points for phone number 1.5 points for email or web form 1.5 point for FOIA process response time 1.5 points for fee disclosure Sub Category: FOIA Officer (3 points) 1 point for name 1 point for phone number 1 point for email or web form 4. Budgets (10 Points) 2 points for each year of last 5 years budget (detailed budget-no summary) Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 5. Financial Audits (10 Points) 2 points for each of the last 5 years of comprehensive financial audit Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 6. Expenditures (10 Points) Sub Category: 3rd Party Individual Expenditures/Check Register (5 points) 1 point for each of the last 5 years Only 50% credit if document isn't on own page (in board packet). Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable Sub Category: 3rd Party Annual Expenditures (5 points) 1 point for each of the last 5 years Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 7. Salary & Benefits (10 Points) Sub Category: Individual Employee Salary Compensation (5 points) 1 point for each of the last 5 years Only 50% credit if it only includes ranges or salary bands Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable Sub Category: Individual Employee Benefit Compensation (5 points) 1 point for each of the last 5 years Only 50% credit if it only includes ranges or salary bands Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 8. Contracts (10 Points) Sub Category: Current Requests of Bids & Proposals, Over $25,000 (2.5 points) 1.5 points for listing of open bids & proposals 1 point for instructions on where & how to submit a bid or proposal Sub Category: Approved Vendor Contracts, Over $25,000 (2.5 points) .5 points for each of the last 5 years in contracts Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable Sub Category: EmployeeContracts (5 points) 1 point per each of the last 5 years for all employee or union contracts. If no contracts, then an employee handbook or similar document detailing wages, benefits, vacation, sick, leave policies, etc. is accepted. Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 9. Lobbying (10 Points) Must disclose value and purpose of each contract Must disclose any membership organizations they belong to that also engages in lobbying 2 points for each of the last 5 years 10. Taxes (10 Points) Must disclose the tax rate for all major revenue sources (property, income, sales, etc.) on one central page Must disclose all revenue sources Must disclose all fees (fee schedule)

Here is some background material regarding the non-profit, Illinois Policy Institute.  Its website is:  http://www.illinoispolicy.org/content/?section=504

The Illinois Policy Institute's Ten-Point Transparency Checklist, Rationale, and Examples.

1. Elected & Administrative Officials: Contact Information
2. Meeting Information: Calendar (Future) Minutes & Board Packets (Past)
3. Public records: FOIA submission & FOIA Officer Contact Information
4. Budgets: General Fund and Special Projects
5. Financial Audits: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
6. Expenditures: Checkbook Register and Credit Card Receipts
7. Salary & Benefits: Wages, Salary, Overtime, Health, Dental, Life, Pension, etc.
8. Contracts: Union, Private Contractors, Vendors
9. Lobbying: Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Associations
10. Taxes & Fees: Sales, Property, Income, and Miscellaneous Taxes, fees on residents & businesses

Best overall website is the Village of Orland Park's, who scored a full 100% on the Illinois Policy Institute's Local Transparency Project.
1. Elected & Administrative Officials: The website should include contact information (Phone & E-Mail) of all elected officials, the top administrator, and the head administrator for each department.

Rationale: Officials are elected to represent their constituents. In order to do so effectively they should be engaged in regular dialogue and be as accessible as possibly by providing a variety of ways to be contacted.
Administrative staffs are knowledgeable resources, provide constituent services and often enforce ordinances. Because of these roles it is imperative for them to be available to constituents by providing contact information to the heads of each department and not just general information.

Example: Elected Officials Village of Streamwood
Example: Administrators Village of Streamwood

2. Meeting Information: Calendar/Agendas (Future), Minutes & Board Packets (Past). (Prior 5-years)
Websites should include notices about public meetings of its governing board, and minutes of past meetings. Websites should have meeting agendas for future and/or past meetings, and board packets so citizens and elected officials have equal access to the information used to make legislative decisions.

Rationale: Citizens should have the knowledge of when an elective body meets and what issues they will be voting on so they can be an informed and engaged in the democratic process. Meetings are one of the few ways the public can engage in true dialogue with representatives. Given the reality of busy schedules, governments should offer an alternative to meeting attendance by posting meetings, agendas, board packets, locations and minutes on their website.

Example: Calendar Village of Hoffman Estates
Example: Agendas & Minutes Village of Hanover Park
Example: Board Packets City of Rolling Meadows

3. Public records: FOIA submission & FOIA Officer Contact Information
Rationale: While a website with comprehensive transparency will cut down substantially on Freedom of Information Act, FOIA requests provides an important means through which the public can obtain information regarding the activities of government agencies. Governments are required by law to respond to FOIA requests. A public body that maintains a website is required by state law to post its FOIA process and FOIA Officer information prominently on its website per (5 ILCS 140/4) (from Ch. 116, par. 204).

Example: DuPage County FOIA Submission & FOIA Officer Contact
4. Budgets: The website should include the current-year budget and the budget for the prior 4 years. (5-years total)

Rationale: Budgets show the big picture of what goals and priorities the government established for the year and prior years. Budgets details also serve as a way for taxpayers determine how the government performed in relation to past years.

Example: Village of Hoffman Estates

5. Financial Audits: The website should include regular audit information for the past 5-years, specifically the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the agency’s total performance. Additionally, websites should include special project report results (such as TIF districts and special construction projects), audit schedules and performance audits for government programs. (Prior 5-years)

Rationale: While budgets give the big picture to constituents, an audit reveals how well the government performs on their goals. An audit reveals how closely elected officials kept their promises, and enable constituents to hold them accountable.

Example: Village of Schaumburg

6. Expenditures: The website should include a Checkbook Register and Credit Card expenditures to all individuals and third-party vendors. (Prior 5-years)
Rationale: Having access to a checkbook register, or bill list, provides timely and pertinent information about government operations to the citizens and taxpayers. Often such bill lists are voted upon by elected officials and citizens should have access to the same information as its leaders. Having expenditure information online deters waste and abuse by government employees, and increases the chances of rectifying problems once they occur.
Example: Year-End Expenditures Village of Schaumburg (Treasurer’s Report)
Example: Checkbook Register DuPage County
7. Salary & Benefits: The website should contain compensation information for each individual employee including Wages, Salary, Overtime, Health, Dental, Life, Pension, etc. (Prior 5-years)
Rationale: Salaries & benefits is the biggest expense area for most bodies of government. Government employees work for the citizens & taxpayers. Citizens should have a right to know how much in compensation they are paying each of their employees as well as knowing the number of employees each body of government has.
Example: Village of Hoffman Estates
8. Contracts: The website should include rules governing contracts posted online for the last 5-years; including bids and contracts for purchases over $25,000 and the vendor's campaign contributions posted with contract. Labor agreements with all employee groups. (Prior 5-years)

Rationale: Contracts should be available for review so the people can evaluate if the contract was a no bid replacement and/or if the government chose the best solution for its constituents.

Example: Village of Schaumburg

9. Lobbying: If the unit of government belongs to any taxpayer-funded lobbying associations that it helps to fund by paying association or membership dues, that information should be disclosed on the government unit's website. Additionally, if any unit of government directly contracts with a lobbying firm that should be disclosed on a website as well. (Prior 5-years)

Rationale: Almost all government entities have lobbyists on retainer or are members of an association that lobbies on their behalf. This information should be disclosed to constituents, so they can make sure what is being lobbied benefits the community.

Example: Anderson County, SC

10. Taxes & Fees: Websites should include detailed information for any type of tax or fee that it levies including sales, property, income, and miscellaneous taxes, fees on residents & businesses. A comprehensive fee schedule detailing all taxes is preferred. The information should be easy to find.
Rationale: Citizens should have ready access to tax & fee information. Not only is it important for citizens to know the costs of government, readily available information helps increase collection rates.
Example: Village of Orland Park (Category 10)
If you’re an elected official or government administrator contact Brian Costin at bcostin@illinoispolicy.org for more information on how to earn a perfect 100% score on our transparency audit.

*The Illinois Policy Institute's 10-Point Transparency Checklist was created in consultation with Sunshine Review.

Transparency Grading Rubric

Illinois Policy Institute's Local Transparency Project Grading Rubric A - 90% and Above B - between 80% and 89.99% C - between 70% and 79.99% D - between 60% and 69.99% F - 59.99% and lower Out of a possible 100 points. 1. Elected & Administrative Officials (10 points) Sub Category: Elected Officials (4 points) 1 point for name of elected officials 1.5 points for email or web form to contact elected officials 1.5 points for phone number to contact elected officials Sub Category: Senior Elected Official (1 point) .25 point for name of elected official .375 point for email or web form of elected official .375 point for phone number of elected official Sub Category: Administrators (4 points) 1 point for names of administrators in each department 1.5 points for email or web form to contact administrators 1.5 points for phone number to administrators Sub Category Senior Administrator: (1 point) .25 point for name of senior administrator .375 point for email or web form of senior administrator .375 point for phone number of senior administrator 2. Meeting Information (10 points) Sub Category: Future Meeting Calendar (2.5 points) At least 1 year on regular dates Sub Category: Meeting Agendas (2.5 points) Is the next meeting’s agenda online or do they regularly post agenda’s online prior to meetings? Sub Category: Meeting Board Packets (2.5 points) .5 point per each of last 5 years online. Only 70% credit if documents are not searchable Sub Category: Meeting Minutes (2.5 points) .5 point per each of last 5 years online. Only 70% credit if documents are not searchable 3. Freedom of Information Act (10 Points) Sub Category: Freedom of Information Act Page (7 points) 1 point for address to submit FOIA 1.5 points for phone number 1.5 points for email or web form 1.5 point for FOIA process response time 1.5 points for fee disclosure Sub Category: FOIA Officer (3 points) 1 point for name 1 point for phone number 1 point for email or web form 4. Budgets (10 Points) 2 points for each year of last 5 years budget (detailed budget-no summary) Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 5. Financial Audits (10 Points) 2 points for each of the last 5 years of comprehensive financial audit Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 6. Expenditures (10 Points) Sub Category: 3rd Party Individual Expenditures/Check Register (5 points) 1 point for each of the last 5 years Only 50% credit if document isn't on own page (in board packet). Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable Sub Category: 3rd Party Annual Expenditures (5 points) 1 point for each of the last 5 years Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 7. Salary & Benefits (10 Points) Sub Category: Individual Employee Salary Compensation (5 points) 1 point for each of the last 5 years Only 50% credit if it only includes ranges or salary bands Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable Sub Category: Individual Employee Benefit Compensation (5 points) 1 point for each of the last 5 years Only 50% credit if it only includes ranges or salary bands Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 8. Contracts (10 Points) Sub Category: Current Requests of Bids & Proposals, Over $25,000 (2.5 points) 1.5 points for listing of open bids & proposals 1 point for instructions on where & how to submit a bid or proposal Sub Category: Approved Vendor Contracts, Over $25,000 (2.5 points) .5 points for each of the last 5 years in contracts Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable Sub Category: EmployeeContracts (5 points) 1 point per each of the last 5 years for all employee or union contracts. If no contracts, then an employee handbook or similar document detailing wages, benefits, vacation, sick, leave policies, etc. is accepted. Only 70% credit if document isn’t searchable 9. Lobbying (10 Points) Must disclose value and purpose of each contract Must disclose any membership organizations they belong to that also engages in lobbying 2 points for each of the last 5 years 10. Taxes (10 Points) Must disclose the tax rate for all major revenue sources (property, income, sales, etc.) on one central page Must disclose all revenue sources Must disclose all fees (fee schedule) IPI’s Recommendations for improving a Local Transparency Project score. (Via Local Transparency Project Grading Ruberic)Elected & Administrative Officials: Include name, phone and email of all elected officials and senior administrators. Meeting Information: Include a calendar and agendas for future meetings. It should also have minutes and board packets for the past 5 years. Public records: Include the address, phone number, and an email or web form to submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The website should disclose fees and the regular response time requirements, as well as the FOIA officer(s) name, email and contact Information. Budgets: Include a full, searchable budget for each of the past 5-years. Financial Audits: Include a comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) in searchable format for each of the past 5-years. Expenditures: Include a checkbook register and all credit card expenditures to all individuals and third-party vendors for each of the past 5-years. It should also include an annual report totaling all expenditures per individual and vendor for each of the past 5-years. Salary & Benefits: Include comprehensive compensation information for each individual employee including wages, salary, overtime, health, dental, life insurance, pension, and all other compensation for each of the past 5-years. Contracts: Include a searchable list all open bids and request for proposals, and list instructions on where and how to submit a bid. The website should include all contracts valued over $25,000 for the last 5-years. The website should also include all employee or union contracts covering the past 5-years. Lobbying: Include a disclosure of membership in any taxpayer-funded associations who lobby, and any contracts with lobbying firms for the prior 5-years. Taxes & Fees: Include detailed information for any type of tax or fee it levies including; sales, property, income, and miscellaneous taxes, fees on residents and businesses. A comprehensive fee schedule detailing all taxes is preferred. We urge you to reach out to the Illinois Policy Institute prior to May 10, 2012. We are dedicated to assisting public administrators and elected officials to improve proactive online transparency via the Local Transparency Project and the 10-Point Transparency Checklist. More about the IPI:  Is the Institute part of the government? No. The Institute is an independent organization that does not accept government funding of any kind. What is the Institute’s political affiliation? The Illinois Policy Institute is independent and not affiliated with any political party. People often ask whether the Institute is conservative, libertarian, or whether it falls under some other political label. Labels can sometimes provide helpful shorthand to make it easier for strangers to become better acquainted, but they also can be inaccurate or miss the bigger picture. The Illinois Policy Institute is dedicated to promoting the principles of liberty in all levels of government. While “liberty” can be interpreted in many ways and applied to many different arenas, we focus specifically on economic liberty and free market principles. We work with anyone who supports our values on a particular issue, regardless of political or ideological affinity, including Democrats, Republicans and independents. Are you an independent organization? Yes. The Institute is an independent organization where principles always come first. Like most non-profits, our work is answerable to a Board of Directors entrusted with advancing our mission. What issues have you had bi-partisan success with? School choice, government transparency and fiscal responsibility – to name just a few. Click here to read an expanded list of Institute achievements that engaged people from across the political spectrum. Does the Institute engage in “social” issues? No, the Institute focuses on economic liberty and free market principles. Do you lobby government? The Institute is primarily a research and educational organization. We do make judicious use of a provision within federal law that allows organizations like ours to promote good ideas to decision makers on a limited basis. Illinois law requires Institute staff who engage and educate elected officials to be registered lobbyists, and we comply with that requirement. What services do you provide to elected officials? Our policy and outreach staff can help policy makers: Explain why free markets allow people to flourish and prosper, producing more dynamic economies, greater political liberty and better health and living standards for all citizens (particularly the poor and disadvantaged). Develop responsible and pioneering policy solutions to pressing problems. Speak to a constituent group, like a local Chamber of Commerce or Kiwanis club, about important policy issues and recent developments. Does the Institute endorse candidates? No. The Institute does not endorse candidates or donate to political parties. We’re thrilled, however, when they adopt our policy positions and advance good ideas that will lead to a better Illinois. Who funds the Institute? The Institute is funded by the voluntary contributions of thousands of committed supporters from across the state who share our belief in free markets, free people and our vision for a more prosperous Illinois. We do not accept government grants of any kind or union funding. We welcome support from a broad range of individuals, businesses and charitable foundations that share our values and are willing to support our work for a better, brighter Illinois. All donations are tax deductible. Because the Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization, our supporters’ names are kept private, although donors are free to share their reasons for supporting our efforts. What is the Institute’s annual budget? The Institute’s 2010 budget was $1.8 million, which was invested in our innovative policy centers, legislator education, activist outreach and informative events. You can help make sure our future impact is bigger and better by making a tax-deductible contribution today. How many staff does the Institute have? Where are your offices? The Institute has more than a dozen hard-working staffers based out of offices in Chicago and in the state’s capital, Springfield. We host events around the state on a regular basis. Our Senior Fellows, Academic Advisory Board, and interns also help promote the Institute’s mission. What is a “Liberty Leader”? For democracy to work citizens need to be engaged and involved. Our more than 1,000 Liberty Leaders – community organizers – work with state and local governments to bring good policy ideas to life. By writing letters to their newspapers, blogging, attending events, and auditing regional bodies of government, they are making Illinois a better place to live and work. Become a Liberty Leader today!

Illinois Policy Institute Privacy Policy | © Copyright 2012, Illinois Policy Institute