Secret Discussion: Elmhurst Poised To Release It

ELMHURST, IL – The Elmhurst City Council plans to vote Tuesday on whether to release a recording of part of a closed session that the attorney general considers illegal.

During the Nov. 23, 2020, closed meeting, the council discussed whether to extend a nursing home's permit to expand, which neighbors opposed.

Last year, watchdog Edgar Pal filed a complaint with the attorney general about the council's closed meeting. He said he did not find out about it until a Patch story in April 2021.

In the story, Patch reported on an email from City Manager Jim Grabowski indicating that aldermen discussed the nursing home's permit behind closed doors.

In July, the attorney general's office issued an opinion against the city. It urged the city to release the meeting recording and a verbatim transcript.

A couple of years ago, the city internally debated about whether the expansion at Elmhurst Extended Care Center, 200 E. Lake St., had technically begun. The project was approved in 2018, but the permit was repeatedly extended, upsetting neighbors.

During the closed session, Grabowski said in the email, then-Mayor Steve Morley asked aldermen for their thoughts on the project.

A majority agreed with the city attorney that the nursing home had met the "substantially underway" standard. The attorney cited the amount of money spent on the building drawings, purchase of a building permit and the erection of a construction fence, among other things.

But the project missed one critical element – ground was never broken.

Late last year, the city revoked the permit.

The City Council maintained it had a right to discuss the matter in private because the litigation was "probable," an exception under the state's open meetings law.

Pal, however, argued no exception under the open meetings law allowed the council to close its doors to discuss a special use permit.

In its response to the complaint, the city said the nursing home's lawyer, Scott Day, said in a conversation with a city official that the facility would sue if the city found the project was not "substantially underway." Such a finding would mean a revocation of the permit.

In its July 5 letter, the attorney general's office noted the threat of litigation. And it said the council could meet privately to discuss strategies, theories and consequences associated with a lawsuit.

But the attorney general said the closed session discussion focused on the permit itself, not the strategies and other aspects of litigation. Because of that, the discussion should have taken place during an open meeting, the attorney general said.

Over the years, Pal, a former Elmhurst resident, has prevailed over the city and other public bodies on government openness issues.

In 2020, Pal obtained the browser histories of City Council members during council meetings, but the city fought the release until the attorney general stated such records were public. Pal said he requested the histories because council members appeared to be distracted on their city-issued laptops during public input at meetings.

Twice, Pal has obtained recordings of closed meetings of the Elmhurst School District 205 board after favorable decisions from the attorney general.

In one case, the board moved into a closed session to discuss its differences with the city.

Behind the supposed safety of closed doors, then-Superintendent Dave Moyer called the city "a jerk" and accused it of "shenanigans." Board members could be heard agreeing.