At a special meeting Tuesday, the Kane County Board voted 13-7 in favor of censuring Board Chair Corinne Pierog for allegedly revealing confidential information in connection with a complaint made against a board member.
County officials did not state the details of the complaint and investigation at the meeting, citing the confidential nature of the situation.
The meeting was chaired by board member Bill Roth, as Pierog recused herself from presiding over it.
Pierog did not comment on the censure at Tuesday’s meeting, and declined a request for comment afterwards.
According to Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser, the matter under discussion was an allegation that Pierog shared “specific information about this investigation to members of the board that were beyond her specific authority.”
The disclosure was related to a complaint, made against a board member, that was investigated by the State’s Attorney’s Office, according to Mosser. In connection with the complaint, Mosser said, an action plan was created that the board member voluntarily complied with, and the complainant and witness were in agreement with resolving the situation via the plan.
Mosser indicated that the majority of the information remains confidential still, and that the only thing not confidential was the name of the board member who was complained against.
She also confirmed that the investigation has since been resolved, and that Pierog was not involved in the discussion about it.
Members of the board confirmed that the complaint was filed by an employee, not an elected official, and that the complaint was against board member Clifford Surges.
Surges did not return a request for comment on Wednesday. He voted in favor of the censure at Tuesday’s meeting.
As to the confidentiality of the matter, Mosser pointed to state statute and said that related county policies “explicitly state that disclosure of allegations shall be restricted to those individuals who have a need to know,” and that complaints are not to be discussed with anyone other than those “directly involved in the incident, investigation or complaint process.”
The reason for this, she explained, is to encourage individuals with complaints to come forward without fear of retaliation or retribution.
More Top Picks Best Uv Nail Lamps For Christmas
“Disclosure of information concerning these complaints beyond those within a need to know puts investigations at risk, creates a chilling effect for other claimants and raises concerns of retaliation,” Mosser said. “This board is not always entitled to specifics of the allegations, or the investigation, or even the resolution.”
And a censure, Mosser explained at Tuesday’s meeting, is essentially a “public statement” of wrongdoing.
The resolution censuring Pierog and voted on Tuesday was drafted by board member Leslie Juby, with the advice and consent of the State’s Attorney’s Office, Juby indicated at the meeting. Juby did not return a request for comment the following day.
The resolution expresses “formal disapproval of” Pierog’s actions, saying she “acted in a manner beyond her scope of duties” by “inappropriately participat(ing) in the sharing of confidential information.”
As for the meeting itself, John Frank, chief of the civil division for the Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office, told The Beacon-News that the board’s chair gets to decide when board meetings are called, but that there is a procedure for when a group of board members wishes to call a special meeting.
Per the county code, a special meeting can be called if requested by at least one-third of the board’s members. That request is filed with the County Clerk’s Office, which then informs the board of that planned meeting.
At Tuesday’s meeting, the issue generated a little less than an hour of discussion, both from members of the public and the board.
During the meeting’s public comment period, for example, a couple residents spoke critically of Pierog and applauded the potential censure. Others at the meeting addressed the situation involved and its not being made public.
As for the board, opinions on the situation and the censure were mixed.
Board member Michelle Gumz, for example, said that the censure was “the right thing,” but said the situation “isn’t easy.”
Board member Bill Tarver, meanwhile, pointed to “integrity, empathy and values,” saying that the board’s chair should set the example for the rest of the board and suggesting that situations like these make residents more skeptical in trusting them.
Meanwhile, board member Verner Tepe took issue with what he called a “rush to judgment.” He said situations like this “seldom make any difference at all” and “create bad feelings everywhere.”
Tepe, during the course of the meeting, attempted to move the matter into an executive session, but that move failed to secure the needed votes.
A couple board members similarly expressed dissatisfaction with how the process occurred.
Several officials pointed out that Pierog had the opportunity to comment on the matter at the meeting, but that she declined to do so.
More Top Picks Best Desk Chairs For Teens
Following the discussion, the vote to censure Pierog ultimately passed with a majority of the board voting.
In favor of the censure were board members Jennifer Abbatacola, Deborah Allan, Jon Gripe, Michelle Gumz, Leslie Juby, Bill Lenert, Michael Linder, Bill Roth, Jarett Sanchez, Clifford Surges, Bill Tarver, David Young and Kimberley Young.
Opposed were board members Alex Arroyo, Sonia Garcia, Mohammad “Mo” Iqbal, Chris Kious, Myrna Molina, Cherryl Strathmann and Verner Tepe.