UPDATED: 'Disgusted' Park Board Member Files Open Meetings Act Complaint

Editor's note: This story has been updated (9:54 p.m. July 18) to include written comments from park board president Peter Hurtado.
----------------------------------

The Plainfield Park District Board of Commissioners is already facing two pending Opening Meetings Act complaints. Now, a third complaint is under investigation after being filed by one of their own.

Park commissioner Mary Ludemann sent an email to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's Office on July 1, asking the office to look into whether the board violated the act by not providing a large enough meeting space at its May 28 meeting.

It was at the May 28 meeting that the board voted to make Village of Plainfield Trustee Garrett Peck the permanent park district executive director — a controversial move that had generated considerable public attention. Six days before the meeting, the Plainfield "Park Truth" group staged a protest of the board's decision to make Peck the interim director, and was urging residents to attend the May 28 meeting.

Read: Protesters to Plainfield Park Board: 'Garrett's Got to Go'

During the meeting in question, some residents were asked to leave the board room due to overcrowding, forcing some people to watch the meeting from the doorway or hallway.

In her email to Madigan's office, Ludemann included a link to a Plainfield Patch story featuring video of the May 28 meeting. The video shows numerous people crowded together in the doorway.

Click on the embedded video to view footage from the May 28 meeting, or read the original Patch story here.

In a July 10 letter to park district attorney Matt Campbell, Assistant Attorney General Rob Olmstead also mentions the video, and says that Madigan's office has determined that further inquiry into Ludemann's complaint is warranted.

"[The video] I think says it all," Ludemann said. "You can see the people in the doorway, you can see the shadows of the people you can't see [behind them]."

Plainfield Park District spokesman Doug Booth did not immediately return a call from Patch on Thursday.

However, board president Peter Hurtado responded to Ludemann's complaint with a written statement Thursday night.

"All elected officials are required to take the course on open meetings proctored by the attorney general’s office, which both Commissioner Ludemann and I have," Hurtado said in an email to Patch. "We take these allegations very seriously and will do all within our power to ensure that our residents have uncompromised access to park district proceedings.However, I am personally disappointed that Commissioner Ludemann chose not to voice her concerns directly with the board and general public. Had she done so, the issues she raises could have been aired and addressed. Utilizing the attorney general as a means of resolving political disagreements is not, in my view, in the best interests of the public good which we have all been elected to serve."

Board member: Request for location change denied

Ludemann also alleges that she attempted to get park Hurtado and then-interim director Peck to move the meeting to a larger space. In an email sent May 20, Ludemann wrote, "Just wanted to mention that I keep hearing that there may be a lot of people attending the June meeting. In order to accommodate all of them I advise that the meeting location be changed to a location that can accommodate a larger crowd such as Village Hall or a school."

In his reply, dated a full week before the May 28 meeting, Peck told Ludemann he had discussed her suggestion with Hurtado, who had decided to keep the meeting at the Ottawa Street administration center.

"I have already discussed this matter with President Hurtado and our conclusion was that while it may good to have additional space, we also do not want to confuse residents as to the location of the meeting," Peck said in the email. "They have always been at the Park District Office. I have been speaking with the [attorney general's] office and it is best to keep the same location to be in compliance with the OMA."

Ludemann said she made the request after learning of the planned "Park Truth" protest, which took place May 22.

"With the protest rally, it was pretty obvious that there was a lot of interest," Ludemann said. "I had asked that they take that into consideration, and they would not. I was disgusted, I guess, for lack of a better word."

Ludemann disagreed with Peck's assertion that meetings have always been held at the park district office.

"We have moved meetings when we thought there might be a crowd," she said, citing a meeting held at Ira Jone Middle School to discuss issues in the Farmstone Ridge subdivision. "We were prepared, just in case."

Since the May 28 meeting, it appears park district officials have had a change of heart. Last week, a notice was posted on the park district website noting that the July 24 meeting will be held not at the administration center, but at the Plainfield Police Department, 14300 S. Coil Plus Dr.

Read: Change of Venue for Plainfield Park District Budget Meeting

Ludemann said she was surprised to learn of the new location.

"They never told me they were moving the meeting. I saw it on your Patch site," she told Plainfield Patch. "I'm glad they did move it, though."

Complaint is the fourth since May

Ludemann's Open Meetings Act complaint is the fourth filed since May.

According to an article in The Enterprise, the state ruled earlier this month that the board did not violate the OMA when it held a June 12 meeting despite a severe storm warning and tornado watch. That complaint, filed by park district resident Vicky Polito, noted that both the village and Plainfield Township canceled planned meetings that evening due to the severe weather.

Former park board president Michelle Kelly last month asked Madigan's office to look into the lack of public comment at a May 11 special meeting, along with the fact that several people were not permitted to speak at the May 28 meeting. Kelly also questions whether the lack of space at the May 28 meeting constitutes an OMA violation.

In May, resident Mark Krippel filed a similar complaint, asking whether the May 11 agenda was posted in advance of the meeting as required by the act.

"Mine and the other two [complaints] are still pending," Ludemann said, adding that the Plainfield Park District has responded the attorney general's requests for additional information on the complaints.

Related:

• Plainfield Park District Faces Second Open Meetings Act Complaint
• Plainfield Parks: AG Investigating Special Meeting
• Plainfield Park Board Passes New Public Comment Rules; Draft Budget Put on Display
• Resident Slams Plainfield Park District for 'Risky' Cuts
• Letter: Plainfield Park Board Commissioner Concerned about Budget Cuts