City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We will call to order the City of Rockford Special City Council meeting for Monday, August 10th, 2026. Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Logeman?

Here.

Toonberg?

Here.

Frost? Here. Tarina? Here. Frenzy? Here. Neal? Here. Hoffman? Here. Granite? Here. Beach?

Here.

Sagado?

Present.

Meeks? Here. Bell? Present.

Bonnie?

Here. 13, present.

Excellent. Thank you. We have a quorum this evening. Council, we have one item before us. That's item 2-1, Roman numeral 2, item 1, election. Election of alder person to serve as acting mayor pursuant to 65 ILCS 5-3.1-10-50F. At this time is there Alderman frost give me one.

Yep before there's I believe there's a motion but but before We get to the motion. I just want to express kind of the history of last Monday I sent an email to our legal director Concerning but and you hit it right section 50 of the Illinois statutes concerning this matter concerning whether or not we as a city due to the timing of your announcement to resign would be would be appropriate not under the ordinance it's important to know that we do meet the requirements of section 50 subsection F because it is greater than 28 months My position was that Section F1 does not apply because that allows for an election of an acting mayor if there's under 28 months. And it's important to know that this specific statute was amended in 2025, 2021, 2015, 2008, 2005. And I bring that up because I had the privilege and pleasure of talking to Carrie Lynn Krafthefer, who we received a memo from her yesterday. She called me last week. I spoke to her about this matter. And again, we spoke today for about an hour. And I do agree with some of the items that she mentions. But one thing we agreed on was that the statute under F is not ambiguous. There is no ambiguity, and it's not as if there's more than one interpretation of Section F. She acknowledges that. She believed that maybe it was left out in error, and my point on that as well, it's been amended six times. So if the state legislature has had a crack to amend or modify this six different times over the last, 10 years and they've chosen not to another point on this lack of clarity is that nowhere in the memo that she created does it identify something that's very crucial to our city unfortunately and that is that we are not a home rule of town We do not have home rule. It was taken away. As in all, I was here. We tried to get it back, and we failed. So we talked about cities like Evanston and Harvey, Illinois, that have either had by death someone get an acting mayor get appointed, and the nuances they have home rule so they can they can form a rules committee and make their own set of rules on how they're going to elect if and they and they did but we we don't have that ability we heard tonight from mr grow talking about the the tid and we are limited by statute because there's a statute on it that says what we can and can't do And in fact, there's another statute that says that because we don't have home rule, we have to follow the express authority of state law. We can't just, I mean, I respect her as an attorney, but her memo just says, well, you know what, since it's not in there, let's just kind of make it up. Here's a couple options to consider, because in practicality, If you follow the law, you don't have a mayor. And I get that. But I'm not on the state legislature, right? I didn't make the law. I'm an officer of the court. I have to interpret the law and abide by the law. So what's our option? Well, we really would need a special session of the legislature to fix or amend, if they choose to, section 50f or perhaps in the veto session in fact she actually heard in the last paragraph kind of hit it on the head and put the burden on on our mayor who's going to be the new director of the iml and said hey when you start your job please fix this and so i i just and the reason why i say this is is because um we can't just snap our fingers and do what Proposed I understand the practicality like what was well, you know, there hasn't been a town that hasn't been a mayor Well, I said show me what other towns greater than 50,000 people have been in the situation Without home rule and she can't Right. There is no other example to point to on that So, you know and again it'd be akin to us saying, you know, our CIP budget is 300 million But we only collected this year $200 million in funds on sales taxes or motor fuel taxes. So guys, we're just going to have to take the 1% tax and make it 2%. We have absolutely no authority to do that, none. If we wanted to change our real estate transfer tax because we just need a little bit more money, or like we have in reality this year, we have a budget crisis. We can't just amend items that have where it is required to file the express law of our state. Since we don't have home rule, we have to file the express law. And that's what our authority is for. Otherwise, I believe it would be dangerous. So without going into much further ado, I just wanted to point out What my position is, the research I've done, the conversations I've had, and why I'm not saying, I don't know why the state legislature did what they did. But one of the other things that was never discussed was sometimes when you're trying to figure that out, they look at something called legislative intent. And they go back and they look at the actual transcripts of the debate on the floor of the House or the Senate. to see what specifically was discussed. Well, that wasn't done. So since that's not done, I am very uncomfortable as an officer of the court going forward and voting on an acting mayor because, again, she then reaches out to Section 51, which governs all cities greater than 500,000. There's only one city in our state that has more than 500,000 people, and that's the city of Chicago. And there's scores and scores of legislation and statutes that govern specifically either the city of Chicago or Cook County. So again, she's on board. You just can't say, well, we're going to follow Chicago law. We're going to follow Section 51 because it doesn't apply to us. We're not over $500,000. We follow the one that says that you're under $500,000. So that's my point. I just wanted to make it clear why I feel the way I do. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alderman Tuber. Thanks, Mayor. I, along with probably many people here on council, read and reread that memorandum, and I appreciate this Carrie Lynn's contribution to this. A few things that I, you know, reading through it is, yes, it alluded to the statute with 500,000 people or more, which of course, as Alderman Frost pointed out, is Chicago. It also touched on municipalities with 5,000 people or less. A big differentiation on how they can go about things, of course. You know, to maybe insinuate we should follow Chicago law is, again, I would say we're probably closer in size to balance 5,000 or more, or around 5,000. I feel that when I read this, it's subjective in such a way. Is there a state statute that addresses our specific situation? And the answer would be, to my knowledge, no. Are we going to come up with our own reasons or our own rules to do what we are looking possibly to do tonight when there really is no statute in our laws to do so? I think that could be a slippery slope. Could it entail just one person in our community to file a lawsuit for our doings tonight? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm happy to say that. But then are we going to find ourselves in a court situation? I just, you know, when it talks in this memo, the statute clearly specifies that an acting mayor is to be appointed to serve out the remainder of the term in a situation where the vacancy is created with less than 28 months. Specifically, and I quote, which is not the situation here. So again, we're not in that situation. I quote, the lack of clear language applicable to this situation. So again, I would say that with the matter being could be subjective. Is there a possibility that our situation could be sent to another law firm that specializes in municipal law and get an answer that says, hey, with the situation you're in, And according to your state statutes, you guys are kind of in a pickle here. And basically saying there has to be something done on the state level through the legislator before you can move forward with this. And so my thought is that I'm going to listen tonight and And C, I think we're happy to vote as long as we or I or some of us believe that we are following the law, the laws of Illinois, which we were sworn in to do. And frankly, if there is no law for our situation, there's nothing in the statutes of our situation do we move forth with this or do we wait for uh our our local legislators to address this which would probably be at the lame duck session in november and then move forward with it from there so i will uh give up florida for the time being thanks thank you uh i'm just jotting down names here

So Meeks, Neil, Beach, Bonnie. Meeks, please.

Thank you so much. I just want to say that I feel comfortable moving forward, and I'm ready to vote. I appreciate the language that was given to us from our legal director. I appreciated the language that she gave to us the first time, and I'm happy that we're circling back to that particular language. I think that that's how we should all move forward. I just want to say thank you to the legal director for putting in all of the effort initially, putting in the effort after it was questioned, and getting us confirmation on your original memo so that we can move forward. I think everybody feels that we need an acting mayor in this interim period. I could be wrong about that based on the... you know, just kind of the delay of this process. But I think it's very important that we have as much consistency as we can have during this time while we are searching for the new mayor. And that's just my opinion, but I feel very comfortable in the decision that was made and our ability to move forward with making a vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Neal?

Thank you, Your Honor. I was just wondering if our legal team has any response to add to what the alderman of the Fifth Ward brought up.

you mean uh i'm sorry fourth word yes fourth word director thank you mayor so i i think the the memo does a good job of outlining the plain language in the statute and i agree that it is problematic by a plain language reading of it. However, based on the analysis done by the attorneys from Ansel Glink, in addition to the plain meaning exception, that if a literal reading of the plain language in a statute causes a clear absurdity, then it's implied that the legislature intended a different interpretation. So I think that's also a principle that is applicable in this situation. Because I do agree with the alderman of the fourth ward that there is a discrepancy in the plain reading of the statute. However, I'm comfortable in moving forward with the election of the acting mayor based on the guidance that we've received from the Ansel Glink law firm, as well as the plain meaning exception of statutory construction.

Thank you. I certainly can't add to any of the legalese, Alderman Neal, but I don't know Carrie Lynn Creff craft heifer or uh but in doing some research on stewart diamond i think his specialty is municipal law and i believe he's a partner at that law firm uh did you have other comments no thank you uh alderman beach thank you your honor um

I do also want to thank our legal director. I know I've spoken to her many times. I know that she spent a lot of time. And I know the idea was to get another opinion. And what's interesting is the other opinion kind of just is the same opinion that she had initially. And so when I look at it, I've read it. I've put so many underlines. I don't... We talked about that to our Fourth Ward Alderman lawyer. Then it says, because of the direct lack of statutory language, and they give three options. That was talked about tonight. Now what I want to ask, it says, the first would be to simply appoint an active mayor. Who would do that? Who would make the appointment? Because the second says, to simply appoint a mayor full time. Who would be that person to appoint? It doesn't say elect, because it's a point.

Alderman Beach, can you point me to where you're reading in the memo? I just want to make sure.

Yes, I'm on page two, and I'm down in paragraph one, two, three. It says here, because of the lack of text or language applicable to the situation, there appears to be three options, all of which discussed below. The first would be to simply appoint an active member. Then it goes down, the second would be to appoint a mayor from Chen, and the third is to operate without a mayor. Those are the three choices that he came up with. So I'm not saying the word will appoint. I'm saying, who would appoint?

So our rules of procedure speak to appointments. And if you can just bear with me here, I believe the rules adopted allow the mayor to make appointments upon the advice and consent of city council. So I would presume that is the rule that would guide the appointment provision that the memo refers to.

So, in other words, as I understand it, oftentimes the mayor puts before us a list of department heads or wherever and asks us to confirm it. I guess I understand the mayor could, in fact, say I'd like to put up to this council, this person or that person, to serve either the mayor or the representative. That's kind of how I see it.

Thank you for letting me speak. Mr. Cagnone already said no to me, so I'm joking. We have Alderman Bonney, then Alderman Frost, then Alderwoman Prunty. Thank you, Mayor.

don't disagree with points that a third and fourth ward alderman have made but about this legal opinion that we have now from an outside outside counsel but i'm not hearing a motion to get another legal opinion i'm not hearing a motion to lay it over or to direct the mayor or staff to talk with appropriate state officials about what might be a correction to the state law that could occur in time to address Mayor McNamara's departure at the end of the month. So setting aside the decision on whether we agree or disagree with the

legal opinion that we have and we move forward.

What I asked our legal director to draft is a recommendation for a process that we would follow should we decide to move forward and elect or select an interim or mayor pro tem. You know, my thoughts on it were really three things. The law, the state statute does say that we should, that there should be an election by this body of one of our own, not an appointment. And an election is a choice between candidates. It's not a yea or nay on an individual. The second is, if we were to approach it that way, where we place a name and nomination, one name only, and then we vote yay or nay on that creating a situation where we're going to be voting no on each other and as opposed to expressing a preference for one of us over some potential other candidates and I just think it we could use that diplomacy at this juncture and we're we're gonna appears that we have several interested who would like to be selected. And I think the third reason is that If we do a series of yay or nay votes, the sequence of that could affect the outcome, whose name goes up first versus whose name goes up last. And as maybe aldermen fail to get to a majority vote, that then builds support for somebody else whose name would be called on later. So with that, I'm going to move, assuming that we don't lay this over tonight, that we agree that we establish a rule for a selection process, assuming we move forward. And so that would be that I move that the council establish the following voting procedure to elect an acting mayor for the vacancy effective on August 30, 2026, um number one that the mayor opens the nomination process and leaves the nomination process open until no further nominees are placed up for consideration then number two that the nominees shall collectively be placed before the council for consideration by which each other person will vote for one nominee by stating the last name of the nominee via roll call vote and three In the event that one nominee fails to receive a majority of the votes after the initial vote, only the two nominees who received the most votes in the initial vote shall be considered for subsequent votes for the acting mayor to fill the vacancy that occurs. And my thought on number three is simply that that helps us potentially break any logjam and get to a majority vote.

so um so we have a motion we have a second uh is there any discussion on the motion and i know i have several names that had questions or comments uh discussion items prior so i i had those lists i will come back after uh this vote if you don't have any discussion on this vote so we have a motion we have a second is there any discussion on alderman bell

Thanks, Mayor. Would this motion to establish voting procedures to elect an acting mayor remove the option for our mayor to appoint the mayor pro tem that the 11th, the 10th Ward Alderman referred to a few moments ago. Director Hamer?

Thank you. So I don't know that the appointment of a mayor pro temp is a viable option, because under state statute and our own ordinances, a mayor pro temp is only applicable when there is no vacancy. And by the mayor's resignation effective August 30th, that creates the vacancy. So I don't believe an appointment of a mayor pro temp would be applicable due to the vacancy that will be created on August 30th.

Thank you for that clarification on that item.

Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second. Before us, is there any discussion on that motion or second? Clerk, could you please call a roll? On the amendment.

Bogeman. Aye. Toomer.

Staying.

Frost.

I abstain.

Tarina. Aye. Prunty. Aye. Neal. Aye. Hoffman. Aye. Granite. Aye. Beach.

I abstain.

Salgado? Aye.

Meeks? Abstain. Bell?

Aye.

Bonney?

Aye.

Nine ayes, four abstains.

OK. Thank you. Council, we have one item before us that's been amended. And we had a number of people in the queue. Alderman Frost, then Alderman Prenti, then Alderman Bell.

And again, I'm not trying necessarily to change anyone's opinion. I'm frankly just making a record. So one thing I want to say about the report, or the letter from Hansel Blink, that's seminal, is on the last page it says, we believe, if challenged, a court would not find that the legislative intent was to have a situation. And I talked about that with her, and really, that's the cover that they have, is that, like, well, the mayor pro tem doesn't work. I mean, the question then becomes, well, how could you act without a mayor? Again, I don't know. That's not my question to ask. That's up to the state legislature. So it's filling in the void of trying to be practical. And I do understand practicality. But at the same time, their opinion – because I do believe that this – definitely could result in someone filing a preliminary injunction or TRO subsequent to a vote. And I'm not saying that to scare anyone because the vote's the vote. And I'm just making it aware that people have contacted me already about proceeding down that road and so i just and her and i did talk about that in her opinion as well geez i don't know if the judge out there is going to allow you know the city of rockford a city of 150 000 people to act without a mayor and i said i i don't know i don't really answer that but i do know that we don't have home rule we got 140 some odd thousand people And we have to follow the rules. And that's not a dispute. And just with respect to our legal director, I do want to thank you. You've been very kind and very gracious in asking a lot of questions. I'm sure not just of me, but of others. And I know that best efforts are done. And I applaud you for reaching out to someone like Anslep Link because, frankly, like I told you, I called another partner in , it was the first person I called because I do know that they are a firm that does a great deal of work in a wide variety of municipal work. They've defended us on some of our police cases before. They do, and Kerry is an expert on election law, but this issue doesn't fall under the Illinois election code. And that's the point I made. This isn't an election code issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Prentice? I don't have anything yet. OK. Alderman Bell?

Thanks, Mayor. Didn't have an opportunity to ask your opinion on this in caucus, nor did I know that there was an opportunity or potential opportunity previously for you as a Democratic leader around this horseshoe to take a vote at caucus. But as you transition and hand this current state of your administration over to one of us around this horseshoe, do you have a preference of who should be the next mayor to take on and finish these next eight months?

I certainly do. I think the person needs to be someone who's going to listen to the exceptional staff that we have here at the city. It needs to be someone who It's honest and forthright and follows through. And as I stated when I first did my press conference, I'm happy to make a vote, and I will if it needs it. But I think I'm not going to be here. As mayor or part of this group, and I think it's a little unfair, I was a little stunned that I actually get to have a vote. So as I stated, I will have counsel vote. And if you guys can't come to an agreement or get someone to that point, I'm not going to taint that process until it's needed to get someone over that hump to get them the majority of those who are present.

And if I may continue. Sure. Just some of the top priorities this individual should be focused on over the next eight months. Obviously, we have a special election scheduled for April 7, 2027, if I'm not mistaken. What should we continue to focus on? Or should this person focus on as you transition out?

Yeah, I would say the beauty and the the difficulty of the office of the mayor you're not going to be able to focus on one priority. I would say there are incredible items before us. I mean, certainly always at the forefront to me is public safety. I think also when you look at the strength of our neighborhoods, we need to, I'm happy that our property values are increasing, but we need to make sure that our neighborhoods are a place that everyone can afford to be and that they can thrive and that they also feel that their children can be outside and play. I think we need to, in our neighborhoods, continue to make our community a more walkable and pedestrian and cycling friendly community. I think we need to continue to increase the quality of life that's taking place in our neighborhoods. I think when you look at an economic development standpoint, I think there are significant opportunities before the city of Rockford. I'm not speaking to ones that are before us today, but I think we are actually in position. We saw it if you look at Hillwood. When we do planning right and we just want another grant, we can attract new businesses to our area. We need to grow our economy to create more jobs, but also create more revenue for this city. I think when you look at an education standpoint, I think Rockford Promise is truly in its infancy. We don't control all of education, so I would say I'll take one step back. I think if you look at the incredible, important work that our own team does when it comes to Head Start, helping early learners, it's the best thing that we can do. And then when you look at what we are doing with Rockford Promise, providing first-generation college students the opportunity to go to college, leave their debt free, and have an impact immediately, not just on their family, but their community, it's important. I would also say some of the biggest concerns I have is what I stated in my press conference. It's alarming to me to see what I believe are national responsibilities being pushed down to the state level. And they're being pushed down at the state level with no funding attached to them. Those then are being, not those exact ones, but other responsibilities are being pushed down to cities. And to couple that, as you all have heard me talk at great length, we are being asked to do a lot more with money being taken from us. I mean, in the last 12 years, I think it's been $144 million-ish that has just been taken from the city of Rockford. We can't do anything about it. You look at the number of unfunded mandates that are continually being proposed by Republican and Democrat legislators, it's putting an incredible strain on communities. We are probably in the middle of the road, maybe just below that. And when you look at the pressures we're facing and where our budget is going, so all of those concerns and many others that I will not bore everyone with, but I just think there are incredible concerns. And I think this group really, whoever the acting mayor is, i get it there'll be divisions and there'll be uh you know oh i want this person or that person oh i would say they're going to need all the support in the world that you can give them so if you support them or not they're still just working for the city we need everyone to come together and support that individual for the next seven eight months i do think uh we're fortunate to have an incredibly strong staff uh that We'll walk alongside that individual and this council through that process. They have incredible experience and expertise and professionalism. I know when I walked into the seat, you kind of think you know different things, and you've just really got to ask a lot of questions, not just of them, but other experts in our city and you on council. Sorry for the long length of date.

Thank you.

OK, with that, nominations are now in order for acting mayor due to the vacancy effective August 30, 2026. Are there any individuals? I need to make a comment. Alderman Salgado?

Yes, I'd like to make a comment real quick. Okay. In regards to the Democratic Caucus, I just want to be clear and transparent. I've gotten a couple comments. I don't look at Facebook very much. It's been going some back and forth that there's a plot or there was a plot. Not from my standpoint. Just be clear. I came from the county where, and maybe you guys, there he goes again talking about Winnebago County as a county board member. But we, I just want to remind folks, you know, we did it through Marilyn Hyde-Ross, a state's attorney, if you guys recall, where our judge, Rosemary Collins, was also as well up for nomination for that the democratic caucus chose maryland height ross and the republicans stood by because it was uh joe bruscato at that point he was a democrat and so we took it upon ourselves to make that decision and that's how that process worked similar situation with our our clerk's office to Paul Gorski unfortunately that one for sure we weren't able to get that individual and then most recently County Board member as well so I just want to Let folks know that was the essentially the essence for pushing forward in a Democratic caucus since we are the majority Was to essentially the the goal was to elect someone out of that body To put forward a nomination since we are the majority ten votes versus four so from that perspective that was the hope that was the intent and As the mayor alluded to, there's obvious support for some and others, et cetera. So that was kind of what I was hoping that our caucus would move in that direction. But I just want to be clear that there was no point in tension, from my perspective, to plot or any conspiracies that might arise from my perspective. This is the first time that I think it has occurred here, and knowing that we were, with the anticipation, the majority of the party here, and we have an elected Democratic mayor, from my perspective, that's where this was headed, and was hoping that we could come out with a nomination from that perspective. So I just want to be clear on that, and as I alluded to, And yes, I 100% agree with the mayor. I think anyone can do this around the horseshoe, this job, especially having the right individuals, the tools to make the right educated decisions. There are some challenges that we already addressed. from the budget that we're currently doing. So those things, obviously there's just a lot going on with our labor negotiations, which are going to continue to work. That individual will need to work on those things. So I think we are all set. I think we're here as a team to make this work. I think we've had a great relationship with our mayor. you know, on certain things and moving the city forward. So I just want the citizens to understand, and from my perspective, that that is the most important thing here. It's not about one of these aldermen here that is going to be the active mayor, but more importantly, that disruption will not occur, transition will be there, and life will move on and we'll continue to move forward. So I just wanted to make those comments here on. Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Bell, then Hoffman, then Meeks.

Thanks, Mayor. Just typed up a question for Director Hammer. What happens if a court ends up finding that we weren't allowed to have an acting mayor? Do the items and ordinances that were approved by the acting mayor become immediately invalidated?

Director Hammer.

Thank you. So typically, no. There is a presumption of validity for ordinances and resolutions adopted by council. So if an acting mayor was signing in his or her role as acting mayor and was later found that election was found to be invalid, it's likely that those ordinances and resolutions would still stand. There are a few exceptions, and I can do some research into that to notify you all of what those exceptions could be.

Thank you, and potentially the last thing that I have written down. It was made clear on social media over the weekend about two weeks ago, and then now again after last Monday night's Democratic caucus meeting that I abstained. And for the first meeting, at least, Director Hammer was in attendance while she wasn't there to provide legal guidance for the Democratic caucus. She did outline and answered a few questions on the memo that she sent to counsel and thereafter. essentially stopped commenting on the Democratic caucus business just for clarity, but it was made clear on social media that I abstained because that was allowed within Robert's Rules of Order and which then became my understanding that the caucus needs to adopt. And so we were following those by default. I did, you know, there were four individuals who abstained a few moments ago with the motion made by the 14th board alderman. And so just have one more question for Director Hammer. Are we allowed to abstain in this mayoral, interim mayor election? And yes or no, I'm not asking really. Director Hammer?

Thank you. So there's an old case from the 1800s that I believe is still good law that indicates that elected officials are required to vote. If you could just bear with me one here. An 1885 Illinois Supreme Court case that indicates council members, I believe it was a board of trustee meeting that was at issue, cannot refuse to vote. However, Robert's Rules does recognize that a member cannot be compelled to vote. I think the answer under our rules, under Rule 3, requires that every older person present shall vote unless excused by counsel or has a direct personal conflict in the matter. So it is likely a violation of Rule 3 for someone to abstain from a vote.

Thank you. Alderman Hoffman, then Alderman Meeks, then Alderman Bonney.

Thank you, Mayor. Moving right along, I would like to nominate Janessa Neal because she has the work history that she needs to be a good leader, and she has shown that she can be a uniter. And right now, from everything I'm hearing, what we need most is someone who can unite all of us. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one nominee, and we will go to Alderman Meeks.

My question is, when the vote comes up, can we do it alphabetically?

So my understanding, and please correct me, my understanding with the amendment that was made, let's say we have three names. All three of those will be before you at the same time. And you will say, you know, you support... Alderman Bonnie's intent was, and I hope it is accurate, is no one, I mean, no matter disagreements or whatnot, everyone has a lot of respect for each other. And I think the idea was not to say, well, I don't want, you know, I don't want, you know, I don't want, you know, I don't want, you know, I don't want, you know, McNamara, I want me because I think this allows you to say that's who your preference is. Is that fair for your intent? Does that answer it?

It does. Thank you. Since we are nominating, then I will go ahead and nominate Alderwoman Gabrielle Tarina. I feel that she also carries the experience, and I think when it comes to uniting people, I think that she also would be someone that would be capable of doing that in this eight-month interim. and so i would like to put her forward and i base this on several several comments and feedback from my residents throughout the community um when you know we're not going to vote on who we want but when the names that were presented were kind of back to back that was the selection that came through on my end so that's who i plan to nominate thank you

Alderman Bonney. Thank you. So regarding the abstention issue, we have had this situation on the council floor before. It was when former alderman Rose was trying to advance the pro-Palestine resolution. And the 12th ward alderwoman wanted to abstain. And our former legal director, now Judge Meyer, cited what What our current legal director cited that that could only happen if that alderman had a financial conflict or if counsel would allow them to abstain and the vote was taken and we did not allow the 12th ward alderman woman to abstain. So by our own precedent, I think that if on this vote anyone is planning to abstain, I guess I'm asking the question, are we going to interrupt the vote every time that occurs? Or should we... Can we... Yes, can we... Agree now to allow abstentions whoever may want one or not so I I guess I guess I would make the motion that we do not allow anyone to abstain from this vote We have a motion.

We have a second on the floor We have a number of hands up I have Alderman Beach then Toomber then frost Alderman Beach

Your Honor, thank you. A couple of things. There were remarks made tonight here that essentially says you are a Democrat, should be replaced as a Rotem mayor for the Democrat. And I've been on this horse show a number of years and We've never been in a situation where a mayor has either died or retired. I have not died. No. I almost did. There's an ambulance coming. All right. is such as when Alder McNeely passed away, when John Beck passed away, when we had others here, whatever party they were there, it would replace them. But the original memo that came out from someone after your announcement was very clear to say there's to be no political distinction in the in the choosing of and right wrong or indifferent that's what it was said yeah and we've heard tonight that we feel that that's not what it ought to be and i have to tell you i've had several calls that said to me we can't vote for you because you're not a democrat we were told that you can't do that that's fine i'm a big boy i can take that i want to put down the records because that's not what the instructions were when it reasonably was brought up and then when our esteemed lawyer for the fourth war done a lot of digging and work and our legal team brought in an expert We see that there are some changes that need to be made that far outweigh that problem. And I did speak today to a state senator that told me they thought probably, as was reported tonight, that by November it could be changed and put away with this argument forever, today and in the future. So I don't know. I was under the impression that we could abstain when we thought the law was a question. And that's my extension. And I really want to thank you for letting me speak again on this issue, Your Honor. And I do wish you well as you travel to a new spot. Thank you.

I would say there was a lot there. I think it typically has been the practice that if an alderman leaves, that you pick someone from that party. My understanding is that's not written out in statute. That's just been a practice. And I think that's what you're probably hearing here about other positions online. And if that senator who may have been or may not have been in the legislature for 30 years They've had all the time to make this crystal clear. We have Alderman Schubert.

Thank you, Mayor. Director Hammer, so is there actually a state statute that addresses our specific situation? Director Hammer?

When you say specific situation, what are you talking about?

cities of 5,000 or less, is there a state statute that addresses our situation as being a city of 150,000 with 28 weeks or more before the next general election? The situation we're in right now, is there a statute that addresses our specific situation?

So it's the the statute that's referenced in the memo 65 ILC s 5 slash 3.1 dash 10 dash 50 and then subsection F is Vacancies in municipal offices with four-year terms So the situation that we're in right now we say the statute doesn't go No, I'm saying There's the state statute was intended to address the specific situation But a sentence was stricken out of that state statute prior to the 2008 amendment and so we're relying on the implied provisions within other subsections as a basis for our position that there's authority to proceed with the election for an acting mayor.

So we're kind of relying on something else to use as a basis. I mean, I think my point before was it's unfortunate that this part of the law was missed, that what came out to us initially was taken as fact as that it is set in concrete by state statute. Individuals within our council came forward People in our community started offering their input. I wish we could do a time warp and go back and have this all set in stone so we wouldn't be in this situation right now. But I mean, we have laws, and we are beholden to those laws. I think it's clear that the way it is currently specifically doesn't address our situation. We're relying, as you said, on something else than to face a decision for us to move forward. I would see us Then we can come back when it's legal and it's in concrete that it's legal what we're doing. There's no ifs, ands, or buts to be argued. And then come back, elect a temporary mayor. I'll be happy to participate in the selection of that mayor. At this point in time, though, I just feel uneasy that what we're doing is not legal. So if I abstain, it's because it's clear, I believe, under state law that we do not have the authority to do what we're doing tonight. And I'm happy to come back in 60 days or 90 days after the veto session. And our state legislators have clearly worked this out and given us the green light to go ahead and elect our temporary mayor. I look forward to participating in that, in fact.

So thank you. Thank you. Just remind folks, tilt your microphone down just so those at home can make sure that they're hearing us. Alderman Frost, you had your hand up.

I agree with the outcome that All in the third word just made. But I want to ask the legal director, did you indicate that in 2008, the public act that amended section 50, prior to that, it actually had in there the ability to elect an acting mayor? Director Hammer.

Yeah, that was my understanding, that it was the 2008 amendment that was overzealous in its language that was stricken, that struck that sentence from the provision leading to subsection F1.

So this is not in the Ansel Glink memo, and this is of great importance because it shows that the legislature clearly had a specific intent if the language was there prior to 2008 and they took it out, which just bolsters what I'm saying all along. I mean, they specifically took it out, and since 2008 to the last amendment, 2025, they didn't fix it. So, I mean, that's another reason why I truly believe, as Alderman Turek indicated, that it's illegal. And with respect to the motion in front of us on Alderman Bonney's motion to make, so here's the deal. I don't care, right? I'm standing on Robert's rules. You can't compel me to vote. Right? And secondly, under our current rules, I do have a direct interest in this matter. I've been contacted as a lawyer, and there may be a standing issue about me proceeding forward with a case. So there has to be a plaintiff that has standing, which has to be a resident of Rockford, to pursue that case. Whether or not it's my law firm or another law firm, a law firm from Chicago, I don't know. But I do have a direct interest in that matter. So either under Rule 3 or under Rule 45, colon 3, on the Roberts rules, which indicates that I can abstain and I cannot be compelled to vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Bell. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. A few things. In 2008, I think, a lot of decisions were made. And maybe coming back to get us, if you know what I'm saying. Annexation. Anyways, have we talked to the General Counsel for the Ethics and Elections Commission in the House or Senate in the General Assembly? Have we consulted with them at all?

Director Hammer?

No, I have not.

I guess why I bring that up is maybe to get their general counsel's analysis of the intent of that piece of legislation. Is that something that we'd be interested in doing, given the climate of this conversation? And we still do have time as I think that the date is August 28th, maybe, that we have a deadline to make a decision. 30th. 30th.

I'm certainly willing to do that if that's the consensus of council.

I think, I guess for me, why I bring that up is if we, and just working down in previously with Representative West, he's the chair of the Ethics and Elections Committee in the House of Representatives. And I think their general counsel could certainly have conversations with our team here. But also, maybe it would prompt a bigger conversation for some legislative action in veto, maybe in partnership with IML. But I just wanted to put that out there to see if that was a possibility. Then I'd also say we're having a discussion on the motion to I forget it.

So there's a motion on the floor. A couple of things. Did you have further comment?

What's the motion? A lot of discussion going on.

So the motion before us, there was a motion and there was a second to not allow individuals from the council to abstain on the acting mayor vote. That is what is immediately before us. Did you have further comment, Alderman Bell?

Yeah, but I'll reserve that for later. You can go. Move on.

That's fine.

OK. Alderman Bonney?

Thank you.

So again, I don't disagree that we're treading in some precarious ground here, potentially. If we want to seek another legal opinion, or we want to seek opinion of various authorities in Springfield, or why is no one making a motion to lay this over and to direct our legal director or whoever to do some of those things, as that relates to abstaining, I guess I would go back to the legal director on, so we have a council rule that you've already recited. I assume that supersedes Robert's rules. I remember making the suggestion when this issue came up before, again, with former Alderman Rose's Palestine resolution, that If you can't abstain and the council doesn't approve it and you don't want to vote, you can simply walk out and not be present. There's nothing that prevents, I guess I'm asking the legal director, rather than abstain against our rules. And I do respect that potentially the fourth ward alderman actually does have a conflict. But everybody else, rather than have individual vote, again, the purpose of my motion is rather than stop the vote and have individual votes on whether or not we're going to allow people to abstain, that we collectively say we're not going to allow people to abstain. And then if someone doesn't want to vote, they can leave the meeting and not be present, correct? Director Hamer.

Thank you, Your Honor. That's one option. Under Robert's rules, I don't believe we can compel someone to vote. But if it would be a violation under our rules, under Rule 3, if you are either not excused by counsel or do not have a direct personal interest in the matter to abstain. So it's possible that they would face some sort of sanction or repercussion for a violation of our rules.

But I'd- Which supersedes which? Our rules or Robert's rules? It's our rules, right?

Yes, so our rules control if there's a contradiction between Robert's rules and our rules. But our rules indicate that they're required to vote. So failing to vote, abstract that, abstaining unless excused by counsel or with a direct personal interest in a matter, would be a violation of our rules. But I don't believe that we can compel someone to cast a vote.

Thank you. All right. So before us right now, we have two nominees. We have Alderwoman Neal, Alderwoman Trina.

I'm sorry, Mayor. That's not the motion. Oh, I'm so sorry. Dear Lord.

It's been a long time. Before us, we have a motion and we've received a second to not allow council members to abstain. My apologies. Okay.

Alderman Barnett I am I would amend that just to not allow abstentions unless the alderman cites a Specific personal conflict and it's the second still good for that amended Alderman Toomberg So we have Roberts rules of rules of order and then we have City Council.

Yes, is that correct? so i'm going to be asked to vote on something that may not be legal is that correct because i'm questioning the legality of the vote due to state statute and now i'm going to be asked by city to vote for something that

might not be legal is that correct director hammer thank you your honor so it's my position that you can you cannot be compelled to vote under Roberts rules so but you may face a violation of our rule 3 if you fail to vote when you're present If you've not been excused by counsel or have a direct personal conflict.

Yes, my conflict would be Voting for something that may not be legal so I do have a conflict.

Thank you Other discussion on the motion the second that we have before us of not allowing individuals to abstain alterman Bonnie

I guess I hate to belabor the point, but I guess the legal director. So what we're saying is, what you're saying is our rule three and Robert's rules, one does not supersede the other. They're coexisting in this case.

Director Hammer.

Thank you, Your Honor. I believe that our Rule 3 requires that every person vote who is present unless they have a direct personal conflict or excused by counsel. So it would be a violation of our Rule 3 if someone abstains without being excused by counsel or having a direct personal conflict. But I don't believe we as a public body can compel someone to vote in a matter. So that's the distinction.

Which is maybe bigger than a Robin's Rule. Correct. Yes. First Amendment. Yes.

I don't believe we can compel them to vote.

We have a motion and a second before us. Is there another discussion? Alderman Bonner. in light of that i'll withdraw the motion okay that was a fun discussion um so right now we have that item has been withdrawn and we have two names before us for nominations alderman bell thank you mayor um i want to hear

of the Ethics and Elections Committee in the GA on what their analysis of the intent was for that piece of legislation as it was amended in 2008, or 2015, or 2025, or in whatever years between that. I do hear Alden Toomber's and Frost's concern from a legal standpoint. If we do not have to make a decision on today, we should not. And so I'll make a motion to lay this item over.

So we have a motion to lay this item over. Is there a second? There's a motion to lay over the item. Is there a second? Fails for a second. We before us have two nominees. Is there any other nominees coming from council for the acting mayor? Seeing no other nominees, the nominations are closed. There's two nominees, Alderwoman Neal and Alderwoman Tarina. Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Logomid. Neal. Toon Burton.

Staying.

Frost.

Tarina.

Tarina. Prenti. Prenti. Neal.

Neal.

Hoffman.

Neal.

Granite.

Granite.

Beach. Salgado.

Meeks. Bell.

Bonnie.

Neal.

The vote is four for Terina, six for Neal, three abstain.

Thank you. Legal Director Hamer, my understanding is to become the acting mayor, you need a majority of those present. With the abstentions, can you walk me through what that means?

So the abstentions do not count. So to be elected acting mayor, with 13 members present and three abstentions. So it would be 10 would be present and voting. So the votes required would be six, because it does not require an affirmative action So the abstentions would would not The abstentions would go with the majority The plurality vote if that makes sense. I did not explain that very well.

Thank you Thank you Congratulations, elder woman Neal. If there's anything I can be doing to assist you in this transition, I certainly will do so. I want to say thank you to the council. Obviously, a very unique situation, which creates lots of challenges. For that, I am sorry. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Have a wonderful night.