Column: Whiteside board members quieter than Lee County’s
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
I started covering the Whiteside and Lee county boards in January 2011. By April of that year, I knew the names and faces of all 28 Lee County Board members but one.
The exception was Kathy Hummel, who hasn’t attended a County Board meeting since March 2010 because of health reasons (but who won’t resign). I’ve never seen her.
Other than Hummel, the last member with whom I became familiar was Jim Wentling, a Dixon Republican.
I can’t remember a time he has spoken during a board meeting. He seems to be a well-liked guy who’ll probably easily win re-election, but he’s apparently not the kind of guy to take strong stands in public.
No other Lee County member is so publicly silent.
The Whiteside County Board, however, has plenty of Jim Wentlings – nice guys and gals who prefer to stay in the background.
To this day, I can’t visualize in my mind the faces of six of the 27 Whiteside County board members.
Why?
Many never take part in County Board debates. Perhaps it’s because Whiteside County’s issues aren’t as pressing: It has a budget surplus, while Lee County records deficits year after year.
A few months ago, I tried to figure out the identity of one of the Whiteside County members before the start of a meeting. I asked four of his colleagues who this member was. They didn’t know. I later discovered it was Ken Roeder, D-Fulton.
This area’s county boards are among the state’s biggest. In many states, county boards – often referred to as commissions – only have three or five members. The Lee County Board will drop to 24 members starting Dec. 1.
Some argue that reducing the size of the Whiteside and Lee county boards would save money.
The county boards’ defenders say reductions would hurt the ability of board committees to function. Besides, they contend, the savings wouldn’t be that much.
They’re right about the savings. But these days, with “accountability” such a buzzword, how can we hold officials accountable if many of us aren’t sure who they are?
They’re likely right, but let’s make sure
I assume the city of Morrison is right. In my line of work, however, assumptions aren’t enough.
Recently, I got 111 pages of documents related to Morrison’s 2009 contract to rebuild the buildings at 101-103 W. Main St., a controversial project.
I sought those documents because Alderwoman Marti Wood told me they refer to windows as part of the apparently required work for those buildings, which the city acquired after parts of them collapsed earlier in 2009.
Those buildings have no windows. Cinder block now fills the outlines of what were once windows.
If you look at Exhibit B to the $335,000 contract, the scope of work includes “clear glass” windows.
After Wood questioned the status of the windows, the city’s first explanation was that Morrison wanted only the outlines of the windows to be rebuilt. Later, officials said a change order removed the windows from the scope of work.
Indeed, a change order from Oct. 1, 2009, says, “Deduct the original scope of contract as detailed in Exhibit B.”
This change order isn’t easy to follow. It doesn’t say what goes and what stays.
Longtime aldermen say they recall that the project was scaled back to simply secure the building structurally, remove the windows, and do other extras.
That’s probably the case. But these documents don’t clearly spell that out – at least to me. I’ve gone through them three times. Maybe I need to look at the city’s meeting minutes to find the answer. (The city has less than a year’s worth of minutes online; the rest are housed at City Hall.)
The city has hired a new administrator and attorney since that time, so some institutional memory is lacking.
Wood wants an explanation, as do two other council members. It wouldn’t hurt to get some clarity.
Sauk Valley Media reporter David Giuliani covers the Whiteside and Lee county governments, Morrison and other smaller communities. He can be reached at dgiuliani@saukvalley or at 800-798-4085, ext. 525.
