Village Council - Special Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the December 16th, 2025 council special meeting for the village of Holly. This special meeting was called by two members of council, council members Wendell and Ryan. Clerk, please call the role. Winebrunner here. Wendell here. Ryan here. Here. Cole here. Ky here. Brandon here. We have a quorum. [applause]

If you are willing and able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This brings us to public comment. Members of the audience may address council on any item. Those addressing council will be limited to three minutes of speaking time. Council will hear all comments for future consideration, but will not have a response at this time. Prior to addressing council, members of the public shall state their name and address for the record. Public comment, please. Miss Manson, Anna Matson, 15091 Western. As I prepared for what to say tonight, I found I found myself for once truly at a loss for what to say, I thought to myself, what do you say to a board that doesn't follow policy, doesn't follow procedure, and doesn't follow the law? And worse, doesn't even seem to care. Every time the public comes up here, it's like talking to a brick wall. You don't care about what the public says. You don't care that by violating the law, you're risking the taxpayers's money on yet another lawsuit. My first lawsuit with the village was partly over a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Since then, I told you repeatedly, "These laws are not complicated. You should know them like the back of your hand. So read them." And yet, here we are. Our very own village president had the audacity to ask whether a motion was needed to go in close session. Well, Miss Brandon, not only do you need a motion, you need to state the exact legal reason under the Open Meetings Act that gives you the authority to hide from the public. Instead, Miss Brandon said, "I'll entertain a motion to go in close session." Miss Kyer said, "So moved." And Cole seconded it, but there was never a proper motion. And let me be very clear, it would be impossible for you to have a legal motion because the Open Meetings Act does not allow you to

go in close session to talk about a budget. So now you have two choices. One, you can do the right thing for once out of your entire term and release the close session minutes. Invalidate the votes and redo the discussion properly in public since a court would require this anyway or hold on to your egos and end up in court again. The decision is yours.

Thank you, Miss Manson. Anyone else? Cherylyn Everly. I'm Cherylyn Everly from 314 Hadley Street and I'd like to address e um the proposal to terminate the current village attorney. My experience both privately and as a council or a member of the planning commission has been that Mr. Gilner seems to take the uh option of protecting the village manager rather than the residents or the people who are um doing the work of the village. Um, back in 2023, I was accused of an ethics violation and um, it started with um, Amber Ker reading uh, the report from Mr. um, Gilder that says, "I was asked to investigate an ethics file complaint that Amber Ker made against Paul Harrington, George Culus, andor Cherylyn Everly." At that point, Miss Ker stopped and said, "I did not." This was after an investigation by the attorney. Um, it's not a big deal because we were all found not guilty of anything. But a few months ago, y'all referred to the Everly ethics investigation and nobody knows what that was about. It still hurts. And it was all about the village offices and that, you know, I offered to make muffins and somehow that turned into coercing a council member and Mr. Gilder was in the center of all that. And while we're talking about the council council chambers, my second piece is that I had asked that this building come before the planning commission, just like any other building that's being put together in our village. But I was told that the legal opinion was because this was a remodel, it didn't have to. This was no more a remodel than, you know, put adding on to a chicken coupe. But that was the expl explanation we got because the village manager didn't want it to come before the planning

commission. And finally, the depot. Again, I asked why isn't the depot coming before the planning commission? Lighting, all the things, sidewalks, parking, all the things require of other people and actually got a legal opinion from Mr. Gilner that said because it was a economic development project, it didn't have to come before the planning commission. all three instances he sided with the village manager to the detriment of the village to the detriment of the citizens. I think he's been there long enough. We've paid long enough. I think it's time even if he's the cheapest um we might be getting what we're paid for. So please, please, I would urge you new counsel for this village. Thank you, Miss Everly. Anyone else? Hearing none. Seeing none, that moves us to new business. Clerk, will you please read item A of new business?

Discussion on procedures for discussing close session information out of session. So, this was added for us to discuss the correct way to navigate close session items out of close session. It also gives us an opportunity to discuss whether any close session discussions may have occurred in violation of Michigan law since we adjourned our close session. So, um, Attorney Gilner, can you please introduce this discussion?

I'm not sure I can. This isn't my issue. Um, I'm here to address the specific concerns raised about our going into close session uh at the last meeting. Uh, in terms of the discussions uh how close session meetings are discussed, I think it's pretty plain that uh what happens in close session is supposed to remain in close session. You all have a fiduciary duty by statute not to take information from a closed session and share outside of that session. That's why the minutes are kept separate and uh destroyed after a year and uh and a day. Uh they're designed to stay there. Um f again I I will focus more on our last meeting and what I was asked to do. Um Mr. Mr. Wendle was not present for that discussion. Uh there was briefly discussed you know how will Mr. Wendell know what was discussed and I simply told him that told all of you that I would contact Mr. Wendell and I did and explained uh what happened. I think that's an appropriate way to handle it. Um that's what I tried to do. Uh, beyond that, I'm happy to answer any questions about specific situations, but the generic rule is is pretty clear. What happens in close session is supposed to remain there.

Now, for us to have a discussion, even though we're not voting, should we have a first to consider the item and a second to support the discussion? I'm sorry, repeat that, please. We won't be voting, but for us to ask questions, should we have a first and a second to discuss this item? At least on number eight, I don't know how you do that if all we're doing is having a discussion about it. Um um you're not acting uh but if if someone wishes to make a motion uh just to raise it to the floor, certainly you can do that.

I don't find it necessary, but if you'd like to ask questions or make the motion to have this discussion, council, go ahead. I make a motion to start the discussion on procedures for discussing close session information out of session. We have a first by Ryan. I'll second. We have a second by Ky. All right, let's have our discussion council. Any questions for the attorney? Madam President, I have a question. Go ahead, please.

Um Mr. When were you able to discuss with um Councilman Wendle what happened in close session? Was it something that happened right away? Did it have to take a week? I mean, just curious how long it might take for for him to be brought up to speak. Daniel, you're gonna have a better memory than I'll I'll swing this one. Um I was uh called by Mr. Gilner on Friday afternoon. I was heading up north. to my uncle's property to help take care of him when Mr. Gildner called me and so it was just a couple days.

Yeah, it wasn't wasn't very long after and I think the whole conversation lasted maybe 20 minutes total if that.

So I can say um having this special meeting be called. I started going through some case law and what I found is that um by a consensus a council can ask you to maybe give that information to an absentee [clears throat] member. They're not guaranteed that right of having the attorney to say that to them, but it also stated that that council member, it is their duty to come in and review the minutes. Were you ever able to do that? I on Thursday had an HTC meeting and that's I spoke to Tim about when I'm supposed how am I supposed to figure out you know what happened and he goes you can make an appointment to talk to see the minutes and I said okay

and you were I just want to be sure that you have been given all of the information before we go into I was giving all the information that I could be I didn't look at the minutes I haven't seen I haven't seen the minutes no because I just went off of what Mr. Gilder had told me. Okay. I appreciate that. Yep. Council, any further questions? Okay. Um, so for my understanding on this, we are not going to take a vote to disc. We can't take a vote to discuss what was talked about. This isn't the place that this item was just to have a discussion. This was more just to

this isn't an session information brought up like How are we supposed to navigate those discussions within this without actually revealing close session information just to get u you know the attorney's opinion to navigate that because nothing's been officially like released on that.

So this just isn't an action item but the other items will have actions. Council, any further questions? Lisa, will you please read our next item of new business? Discussion on council members Ryan and Wendell's allegation that a violation of the open meetings act occurred during the closed session of village council on December 9th, 2025. Do I have a first to consider item B of new business?

I'll make the motion to consider item B of new business. I have a motion by Wendell. I have a second. I have a second by Ryan. Council member Wendell or Ryan as this is your item. Will you please introduce this item? Sure. So

for me, I'm going to read a statement that I prepared. So I am placing this statement on the public record in my official capacity as a village of council member to formally identify and object to a violation of the Michigan Open Meeting Act MCL 15.261 that occurred on December 9th, 2025 at the village council meeting. At that meeting, the council entered into a close session citing attorney client privilege to discuss matters relating to downtown development authority. And that sighting was just in the agenda and not actually spoken out loud as M. said, I actually went back and reviewed the footage and confirmed that and it was to discuss matters relating to downtown development authority including DDA tax increment financial plan and or DDA budget oversight which again was part of old business that we mentioned that we are going to put after because we are planning on discussing. So that was not any information that was in close session previously that we're not allowed to pivot. Under the opens meeting act, all deliberations of a public body must occur in an open session unless a narrowly defined statutory exception applies. Closed sessions are permitted only to consult with council regarding specific pending litigation to consider written attorney client legal opinion that is exempt from disclosure under FOYAS. Um it has been brought to my attention that that is the statute that the village is using for it. Um neither of those conditions was satisfied here. No pending litigation was identified by case name, court or docket number and no written legal opinion was identified that falls under that exemption. The mere invocation of an attorney client privilege is not authorized close session. Discussion of whether a DDA is properly using TIFF revenues, review of DDA budget, or oversight of DDA financial

practices are public policy and financial matters that must be discussed in open session. Using a closed session for those topics is inconsistent with the opens meeting act and Michigan case law requiring strict construction closed session exemptions. So I am requesting that council acknowledge this violation for the record and disclose whether any written legal opinion exists which we had the legal opinion for it. But for my understanding of that MCL, it does not fit attorney client privilege per the statute and reconsider in open session any discussion and direction involving a DDA tiff plan or budget. And I also further request that all records relating to this matter be preserved from either the close session. Any communications between council members between this session and the last session for being reached out to. So I'm making this statement and made in good faith to ensure legal compliance and to protect the validity of council actions and uphold the public's right to transparency.

Thank you, Councilman Ryan. Okay. Um, Gilner, would you like to take over first? Yes, if I if I could. And before I do, I I I'd like some clarification from Mr. Ryan. Um, did you consider uh subsection H. You cited the one dealing with the attorney client privilege or the the pending litigation. Did you consider H? Yes, that was for the legal opinion one.

Okay. So, [clears throat] um I I certainly uh never mind uh explaining myself, uh, justifying my positions, but this is awkward. It's awkward because, uh, I'm I'm doing so publicly, um, and explaining it to, uh, my client. I would hope that all of you know by now that if you have questions or concerns about me, what I do for you, what I tell uh, uh, you at any point of of any proceeding that you can call me. You may not like what I uh, tell you. Uh, we may uh agree to disagree at the end, but I will always tell you what my position is. I'm not sure that I would ever have the confidence of a um concluding that uh someone violated the law and should be fired on account of it without at least speaking with the other individual and saying, "What were your thoughts? Did you think about this? What about that?" Uh I think that's educ for everybody. I make mistakes. I'll be the first person to acknowledge it. And if I made a mistake, I would freely acknowledge it. But this particular question isn't even close. Subsection H says that you can go into close session to consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute. That's subsection H. All three of the opinion letters that I wrote were written under the attorney client privilege. The subject matter doesn't matter. You do not have to go into close session uh to talk about a privileged communication to talk about pending litigation. For example, there's a separate exception for that. subsection H specifically says that you can go to talk about things that are

exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute. So, um Tim, if you would, uh the first here's a case from 2022. This is language I lifted straight from this opinion. I'll let you all read it and I'll provide some context. The court in that case uh was asked because the college board of trustees went into close session to talk about uh exactly this and they invited the lawyer back into the close session. That was also part of the uh the challenge that if you're going to go into close session to talk about a privileged communication, you can't take the lawyer back there. And the court said that writing something under the privilege enables you to go into close session and discuss it. And what the case says is you can't go beyond the boundaries of that opinion. In other words, we can't go back to talk about A uh and then really talk about B, but you can go and you can have a close session. number two if you would please. This is a this is language that's 40ome years old from a case and it's the last sentence which I really think summarizes things.

And in the email uh calling for this meeting, there was a citation to the uh attorney general's open meetings act handbook. The third, this comes right out of that very handbook quoting exactly. As I said, I don't even think this is a close call. Um, I've been representing uh municipalities for 29 years uh over uh six counties. I can't tell you the number of times that we have gone into close session to consider and discuss things that I wrote under an attorney client privilege. I wouldn't even know where to begin to count those number of times. I will tell you uh before tonight, only one other time has anyone ever challenged uh a municipality's ability to go into close session to talk about an attorney client privilege communication. One time it was this community. I won't tell you who raised that issue, but I don't think it requires a whole lot of guess work. one time I wrote all three opinions under the privilege to enable us to have a free and frank conversation. That's what we did. There were no uh votes. There was no decision. Uh there was a discussion. That is what the open meetings act allows. That's what you did. That's what I made sure of and uh I'm confident uh in in those position.

And again, if anyone has questions about it, call me up. And at the end of the day, you still may not like the answer, but at least I will have given you that explanation. I'm happy to answer any questions that any of you have. Thank you, Mr. Gilner. Uh, first I I just would like a little clarification on one thing that you said because I saw people specifically taking notes and I think we're all aware that some people are out for got you moments this evening. So when you said council, I hope at this point you know that you can call me being a little bit familiar with your speech. You meant following our due process. Correct. Say that again. I'm sorry.

You said at one point you all know me. I hope by now you realize you can call me when you have questions. And obviously that's not exactly our process. I know that you were just being familiar. But for the record, you meant within the context of our process. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I like I said, I only mentioned that because I saw a couple people actually typing or writing the moment you said that. So, thank you for the clarification. Council,

I do have a question if it's okay. So, and I was writing down some notes on this because prior when we were talking about um new business a we noted that attorney Gilder talked to Councilman Wendell on Friday. Mr. Wendle then went on to say that he did not ever review the minutes. We as a council received our email about this happening on December, this is December 11th. Mr. Wendle was not given the information to the 12th, but we already had a letter from Councilman Ryan and Councilman Wendle say stating that this is an OMA violation before all of the information was given. How did that come about?

Can I answer that? Sure. Go ahead, Daniel.

On the 11th, Ryan had called me and said he believes that council made an OMA violation. He stated that he did text Mr. Price and Mr. Price said he was unavailable and he asked if I would mind being the second to call the special meeting. The only thing I knew is what I watched from the video of our our meeting on Tuesday about old business A being moved till after close session. So that's all I knew about close session. I had no idea what I spoke about and I said yes, Councilman Ryan, I will I will second the special meeting because if you feel it strong enough in your heart and that you feel something's wrong, I will go behind you. I'll back you up just like we would any other council member on this board.

Thank you, Councilman Wendle. Council, I think there was one item, too. One of the points made that uh purpose needs to be the purpose needs to be stated for why we want to close session. From that same uh court of appeals that Mr. Gilder said, Sunshine Delta, it doesn't actually say say that in there. It says it just needs to be in the minutes is my understanding. So I believe we did talk while we were going into the public the close session before the meeting. Um but I believe the the way the court ruled is it just needs to be in the minutes. And I don't believe that the actually says you have to say exactly why

you have to speak it. I don't believe you have to speak it. I think it has to be in the minutes is what it says. Mr. Gner, can we get I agree.

Okay. So is what's being suggested that we can put in the minutes whatever we want not what was actually said. So I think what I'm saying though is there was ample discussion throughout the the earlier meeting to say we are going to be going session we need to move a for these reasons because of this purpose. So I don't think there was any intent I don't think there was any any possibility of hiding because the discuss excuse me rule order here. Um I've been looking through my emails. I have one email that regards Mr. Gildner saying of a attorney client privilege and it does not state nothing about a budget plan or anything. There's only one item in here that I found through my emails all the way up till when Mr. Costco and me had our differences about the budget by send it to legal. There's nothing. We got no we got no unless I'm missing it somewhere. I don't know. I'm just saying I've only got one letter.

I'm not sure you're referring to. No, I think I think I do and I can answer that with your permission. Yes. So when I write a a an opinion under the privilege, I do not circulate it. I will send it to Lisa or Tim for copies to be made and as you know it's passed out during the close session and then after the discussion I take them back. So you would not have received it directly because no one received it.

That's why I was just trying to clarify that because you made the comment about it being you [clears throat] know attorney Kidge and if you did that that's fine. I'm just you're right. I don't know because I haven't seen the minutes yet. I've only gone by what I've talked to you about. So, I don't know if you had said that to Tim or not or anybody. I have no idea. I believe to try to get us back onto track, Councilman Costa was talking about on our last council packet, it had the reasoning of going into close session due to a legal memorandum. That's what we're talking about.

Well, let me read it. Here's what the the case says. The requirements the states are 23 roll call vote of members elected or appointed and serving is required to call the close session except for close session permitted under blah blah blah. The roll call vote and the purpose or purposes for calling the close session shall be entered into the minutes of the meeting at which the vote is taken. And then yeah, and I I remember when we amended the agenda, it was at um Tim's recommendation in the beginning of the meeting that uh that item D be moved to after the close session. Item A. And we spoke a little was it item A? I thought it was D.

No, it was all business item A. Thank you for that. Um and we spoke on why we needed to get legal counsel before we could talk about that item. The agenda item on the packet to go into close session was consideration of village council to enter into close session to discuss the village attorney's written legal memorandum and to approve close session minutes from uh the November 12th, 2025 meeting pursuant to open meetings actuh 276 1976.

And it sounds like everything that needs to be tended to has been tended to almost like our attorney knows what he's talking about. But here's a question. Does the actual motion that's made by council have to include that? Because we make motions all the time that are different than what's on the agenda.

No, I don't need to read the what's on the agenda should be we vote on the minutes the following month. If those minutes are not correct, then you have a duty to stand up and have that said this is incorrect and not for that. So if we are changing minutes and they're incorrect, every one of us on this at this table needs to say this is incorrect and have it fixed. Right. No, that's not my question. That wasn't what I was asking. Well, you said we make motions not based on what's on the agenda, right? But our minutes should reflect all of that. Our minutes should reflect what we discussed, including the agendas that are whatever motion might have had an amendment to.

You know what? I'd actually like to refer um a question about the minutes to the clerk if she doesn't mind since she's the one that's legally responsible for them. Um Lisa, what has to go on the minutes? So the minutes are a motion. So the agenda item that's there then the motion is the first say the motion, the second that does the motion and then the roll call vote. There's also there's no that says that I have to give every detail every word by word what people are saying. just a synopsis of what was said, but the agenda item is included with that vote. So if it says number one and April said I motion for it and Amber says I second it, it is clearly to that motion.

Yes. And if you guys amend then I would say I'll just use again example, you know, um amended amended item and then I I type it out and then I say motion by K, second by Ryan or whatever, however that is said. So if it's amended, I type that in there. Thank you. Now, real quick, my understanding still has the motion that still needs to have the legal exemption. So,

yeah, and I can read the actually I just pulled it up as we're talking. So, uh open meetings act 15.267 close session roll call vote separate separate set of minutes. Uh and this is section 7-1. A twothirds roll call vote of members elected or appointed in serving it is required to call a close session except for the closed sessions permitted under section A, B, C, G. The roll call vote and the purpose of the and the roll call vote and the purpose or purposes for calling the closed session shall be entered into the minutes of the meeting at which the vote is taken. Council, we have a question. Go ahead.

I have two questions here actually. It says um consideration College councils enter into close session to discuss legal written legal men more whatever that word is. It doesn't say plural. It only says one singular. Correct. My second question is if you did send a letter to Tim, I'm requesting to see it or Lisa. I'm requesting to see that letter. As a member of council, I can request to see a letter to say that okay, I wasn't there so I couldn't get it. So right now if we got to take a five minute break so I can go look at it say okay yeah that was there then we did nothing wrong but if it's if nobody's got a proof that that was sent then there's something wrong

there was there was a legal memorandum that was in the closed session I don't remember exactly like the wording for it or like if it met all my requirements I'm assuming it did but there w there was an actual letter for the budget for all three items I Yes. I think you're confusing. Nothing was sent through email. The the letters that we read were only in close session. I don't know. I don't understand. I did receive one email, like I said, December 1st, but that has nothing to do with the session. Well,

you had the opportunity to come, right? your historic commission meeting uh Monday Friday I had to go up north to leave as soon as my daughter off school I was sick and injured I couldn't come home Sunday night I came home Monday didn't get on Monday till 6:30 right we called this special meeting it was called by both you and Councilman Ryan I mean we could have had more time but We had the obligation. They were there.

Well, I'm just saying one of the things that is on that you guys supposedly talked about behind closed session. I'm sent right here. I got rained by Tim because I accidentally sent reply all to everybody when I write response to it and it wasn't supposed to because my phone hit the wrong button till I laptop. But as you can see, does that or does that not say our attorney's head right there? Yes. That's not the session.

But that's one of the things that we need to move on. Um, is there any uh Excuse me. Rule of order. You do not have the floor. I have I still You are not recognized by the chair. I don't care. Rule of order. You are out of order, Mr. Wendell. Mr. Gilner, do you have a response to Mr. Wendle's question? As I understand it, as I understand it, again, you would not, Daniel would not have received an email from me of any privileged communications, nor did any of you.

So, if I may, we all received a privileged communication related topic. Mr. Cascala, please let Mr. Mr. Gilman, finish. Sorry. I passed it out during uh the close session. You read it. I pulled it back afterwards and destroyed them afterwards. That's what we do in every instance of a privileged communication. Madam President, I have a follow-up question. Yes. Mr. Wendell, you said that that piece of paper was discussed in our closed session meeting. So, you had a discussion with Mr. Ryan about what was discussed in our close session meeting?

No. From what I had talked to Mr. Gildner about, I will read I will I will read this email. I will read this email that was govern. No, I just I just want to clarify the conversation stuff that I was discuss with Mr. Gilder referred to this letter here. I just want to clarify with you, Mr. No, Mr. Ryan never talked. I Thank you. I have the floor. Okay. Thank you.

I want to clarify what you and Mr. Ryan talked about and if you talked about that letter or you talked about the things that we talked about in closed session, you yourself will be guilty of an OMA violation. So, I just want to be very clear about what you and Mr. Ryan talked about in regards to our close session meeting because you said that letter was talked about in a close session meeting and you verified it with Mr. Ryan. Even if you receive a letter that is from the attorney, it still falls under. That's why I'm reading out loud. That's why I didn't discuss it. I I can clarify what

I was going to give the floor to Councilman Wendell if you'd like it. All I All I was trying to say was that because of what I talked about with Mr. Gildner, this email I'm talking about had to have been brought up at the close session. The only thing that Mr. Ryan and myself talked about was he's afraid that there might have been an OMA violation and I would I don't want to get ahead of anything if anything goes wrong for it to happen. I have I have no idea of any conversations of what was said, any kind of discussions or anything like that. Follow up, please. Yes.

So, you made an assumption that that was being talked about in a closed session meeting. You don't have any verification of that? Only by what Mr. Gildner had told me so that I can pair these two together. Okay. Uh, Councilman Ryan.

All right. Just to clarify since there seems to be almost like pseudo allegations going on that I broke by talking to window before this. The only thing I discussed with window was like you said my concern that the OMA was broken and it was just on the old business item that was already established was going to be spoken about inside close session during our open session and that was it. He asked me questions about it. I told him I cannot speak to you about this outside of close session. So that was it. He did if it was about that email we got and I said we can't talk about that outside of close session. So, thank you councel. I'm sorry. Did you

No, nothing about that. Another question is do we have attorney client privilege when it comes to talking about budget or policy issues in close session if it's not pending legal? Um

if it's not pending litigation. uh anything that is written under the privilege on any subject uh can be talked about in close session. There is Tom McKenna um some of you may know uh was on on this board a municipal lawyer um every communication he wrote to his municipal clients, every communication he wrote under the privilege so that it could be talked about in close session. Um, I could write you a a a a privileged communication that today is Tuesday and that would enable us to go into close session to talk about the subject of that. There is nothing in the statute that says the privilege communication must relate to another exception. That just doesn't make any sense that the legislature would require that. If there are exceptions that are there for pending uh um uh litigation for example, you can go and talk about it on that but um on any subject and those three communications were on three different subjects all written under the privilege. It's consistent with the purpose of the OMA um which is transparency. Decisions must be made and open but conversation with client um [clears throat] sometimes has to happen behind closed doors for any number of reasons.

So I I think that a concern from the public at this point would be checks and balances. And I think that you just described that. So if we need um legal counsel, we can have it in close session if it's a written legal opinion. Yes. And the balance is that we cannot vote in close session. So if any decision or action is going to be taken by council, it's going to be taken here in the public eye. That's right. And that's what you did last week. That's what we have always done anytime we have gone into close session. Thank you, councel. That was a non-action item. No vote is necessary.

If I if I could though, I am curious because this is not the first time that we've done this. That is the first time this council has done this. negative.

I don't Yeah, I listen, I'm not in a position to say on this instance or that instance, but um I'd be surprised if this was the very first time you guys got me. I'd have to look back through my notes, council, if there's no further discussion. I have one question just Mr. If I'm not mistaken when we had that conversation that's considered close session for me and you two correct? No, that's not a close session.

That's just conversation with with us. But the conversation, what I was directed to do was to contact you and advise you what was discussed uh in close session. That's what we did. Yes. Well, that right because I can't talk about it. Correct. That's right. Because that relates to the closed session. That's why we That's what I was asking to make sure I didn't mess myself up.

Can I ask a point of clarity on that also? So, as I was reading some information about the closed sessions and things that having the consensus of council to direct an attorney to speak to an absent member is a privilege that we're allowed to do. It's not a right. My reading the right is that you have the ability to come into here and read the minutes. So as far as transparency goes, nobody at any point was trying to keep information. I never was insinuating that at all. Nope. I'm just giving that point of order for the people here to know.

Very good. Thank you. Appreciate that. Council, if there's no further discussion on this item, Lisa, will you please read our next item of new business? Discussion on council member Ryan and Wendell's proposal to terminate current village attorney. Do I have a first to consider item C of new business? Ask a question. Do we Is this a point of order? Yes. Go ahead. Um, do we offer public comment on all agenda items? We did in the beginning. It was on anything and everything under the sun. Uh, do I have a first to consider item C of new business?

Well, if there's no motion. Gosh darn it. It looks like people like you, Gilner. Oh, that's not true. [laughter] I want to thank you right here and now for being so patient and being willing to explain everything in this hostile environment with most of it aimed at you this evening.

I don't mind. I mean, I'm in a I'm in the hostile business. What makes this very uncomfortable is that uh it's coming from the folks that I work for. which just makes a hard job. Yeah, that's all. Lisa, will you please read our next item of new business? Consideration by village council to repeal previous decision on old business item A from the December 9th, 2025 village council meeting.

As a reminder, old business item A of the last meeting was regarding the DDA budget amendment items. Do I have a first to consider item D of new business? I'll make the motion to discuss. I will make the motion for item D of new business. I have a motion by Wendell. I'll second.

I have a second by Ryan. Council member Wendell or Ryan, as this is your item, please introduce this item. Um, this item was I second because Wendell made the motion for this and I believe if he wants discussion, we can discuss it. Um, was brought up because I'm still under the impression that our attorney is incorrect on his opinion on the OMA and it was just for us not to be adversarial but to get the discussion out in the public. Council, any discussion?

Yes, Jim. Thank you. Just to clarify, you you were not privy to the legal opinions we received regarding this matter. Only thing I knew is that it was pulled a special meeting. You don't know why we voted it down? I have no idea. Okay. Not one. I would love to know. I gota come check the minutes but okay perfect

which for me I believe public policy and budget are supposed to be discussed in the public and that doesn't follow under attorney client privilege. So, if I may, as we were going to vote for this, you and I both had a discussion point and we also asked the president if [snorts] they were looking to hire interimm directors and different things. We had questions on the budget before making that vote. So, I don't believe that we didn't discuss it. I think as a council, I myself brought up a question on the budget. So, comfortable. There was no DDA members here to answer the question at that moment.

I mean, and we were unsure of where they were continuing to go with certain things, right? I just believe the entire discussion, even the portion we had in the closed meeting was supposed to be out in the public and during the time I can't bring up those points we made in close session without breaking OMA

council. Any further discussion?

I The reason why again I went when Ryan posted this with the May thing was because one I don't want to see none of my fellow council members get in trouble for me. That's one reason why. Number two is is that because I knew it was about the U budget thing for the DEA because I heard it get pulled. So I knew that was going in there. So that's the thing for the budget DDA thing. I think that should be discussed in the open because we're responsible not responsible in a way. I I feel like this. It's like a new bird. Push them out of the nest. They fly. They fly. They fall and die. They fall and die. We let the DDA make do their own choice. if if they want to fall out of the nest and if they survive and make it, you know, I mean, it's it's hard. It's hard for me because Thursday after I had my sit down with Tim, I watched a DDA meetings video Thursday evening and there was a one part that I was really disappointed in everybody on and it's I can't bring it up here because it's not part of this until we go to council comment but it does revolve around their budget unless Unless Madam President allows me to go on with it, I will.

It's not about my permission. We can we can talk about the items that are covered on here. Well, it's part of their budget. So, if you think that that's addressed in this item, go ahead. That's a decision you have to make for yourself.

Okay. Well, the decision is is that I watched them and they kicked back somebody kicked back a volunteer food order that, you know, Hillary Algy paid for. at night. And at witches night, me and my daughter, as you can see, I am a volunteer. I'm not hiding it. Very well-known volunteer for them. Me and my daughter were the only two volunteers that she had that night. I got hit by two cars and I spent six hours down there with my daughter. Hillary argued with me and I said, "No, if you're not going to get paid, I don't want to eat. Don't worry about it." And then for it to get back for a $35 bill when it's already in their budgeted plan, I felt like whoever kicked it back doesn't have my back because they everybody on this board knows I volunteer and that I took that one person. That's why I think the DDA board should be able they if we have problems with where they want to disperse their money to like how we're how Mr. Costco was doing, which I have I totally agree with them. You know, verify and everything else. We send it to the attorney for verification. They should be able to have verification of it back in person, not us behind a closed door bickering about whatever to whatever. I don't know what was said or how it was done. I'm just assuming, but it went to the attorney in an open meeting. It should be returned to the council in an open meeting. is how I feel when it comes to the whole budget thing. The rest of the stuff of the closing, I have no feeling about that. I really have no feeling about this because I wasn't there. But I say my opinion because I wasn't there to voice any of

my opinion at it, which I was sick. That's my fault, my problem. I can only vindicate why I did what I did this right now. You know, it's like anybody else had went to close session for something or went it was an open meeting and it should be done in an open meeting. It shouldn't be switched to a closed meeting because then it looks transparency gets fog in my eyes because it's like somebody's trying to hide behind something. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Wendell.

Council, any further discussion? Go ahead. I was gonna say I do think it's hard to have that discussion with council window because he has not seen what we did read. He was not privy to that yet and he has not made the appointment to read the minutes just yet. So that is hard to have a discussion on topics that he hasn't had a chance to review. Thank you. Councel clerk, please call the role. Wendle, no. Ryan, yes. No.

Brother, no. No. No. Brandon, no. Motion denied.

Lisa, will you please read our next item of new business? Consideration of adding old business A from December 9, 2025 onto the agenda for the village council meeting on January 13, 2026. Um, looks like this item was contingent on item D being approved. I do have a procedural question that has nothing to do with that item. Sure.

Um my question is just because we allow public comment this time on all items, does that preclude us from having public comment between all the other agenda items, even those in our policies and procedures to have that? Can you reiterate the policy procedures for special meetings, Tim? [snorts] I think right I do think that it does it has stated before when we have special meetings we get one public comment before the meeting as far as I am aware that's how we've done our work sessions that's how we've done our joint sess

I can feel your fear in the room I I wish that um council could work and didn't feel under constant threat and attack and harassment all the time. And I understand that we all want things to be to be done fairly. And um so far I haven't seen the village manager or the attorney or the clerk lead us wrong. It doesn't mean there aren't learning curves. We have some new people on staff. But um I definitely don't see any um nefarious intentions. And I'm sorry that this meeting went down the way that it did. This meeting is adjourned. I want to call out people for their great amaturess.