Candidate Liz Sullivan's Myth About a "Secret" Library Consultant Contract

I recently wrote an article encouraging residents to participate in the library's upcoming community engagement process. As a library Trustee, I can tell you that the Board and staff are looking forward to your input.

In the article, I noted that we've contracted with Millennia Consulting to manage the community engagement process and to ensure that it's as unbiased and comprehensive as possible. The decision to hire Millennia was made after eight months of careful public deliberation.

Here's a quick summary of the process. Agendas and meeting minutes are posted on the library's website under the "About Us/Library Board" tab.

• The Board discussed the idea of hiring an independent consultant to facilitate the engagement process at its May 4, 2016 meeting, and asked the Director to research potential consultants.
• The Director provided public updates on her progress at the June 8 and August 10, 2016 Board meetings, as noted in meeting minutes.
• The agenda for the September 14, 2016 meeting included an action item to allocate funds for the community engagement consultant. The motion was approved.
• The Director provided public updates on the progress of the selection process at the October 12 and November 9, 2016 Board meetings, as noted in meeting minutes.
• The process culminated on December 7, 2016, when the Board held a public meeting to hear proposals from three finalist firms.
• At its January 11, 2017 meeting, the Board selected Millennia Consulting for the project. It approved a $54,450 contract for their services and funds of up to $5,500, if needed, for additional project expenses.

The Birth of Sullivan's Myth

One month later, Liz Sullivan (one of five candidates running for library Trustee on April 4) asked the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor (PAC) to determine whether the Board violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) when it approved the contract. She posted a copy of this request on her candidate Facebook page; you can view an excerpt in the photo above.

Per OMA, meeting agendas must set forth the GENERAL subject matter of any resolution or ordinance that will be the subject of final action at a public meeting. Notice was provided in Item 8(d) of the January 11th agenda (Hire Consultant), but Sullivan claims the wording was intentionally broad and vague. She also claims that the library intentionally failed to include any information about this agenda item in the meeting packet, which was posted online prior to the meeting.

Sullivan certainly wants you to believe that the Board tried to hide the purpose of the contract on January 11th, but it doesn't make any sense. Why would we try to hide it in January when we didn't try to hide it during eight months of public discussions?

These discussions are noted in multiple meeting agendas and in the minutes of at least six public meetings. Meeting agendas and minutes are easily accessed on the library's website. We allocated the funds for the consultant at a public meeting in September. We held a public meeting to hear presentations from the three finalists just a few weeks before the January Board meeting. What was there to hide? Everything was already out in the open!

The Board is confident that the Millennia contract is the result of a thorough, public selection process, and it confirmed that decision at its March 8, 2017 Board meeting.

Can Liz Sullivan Read?

In her official complaint, Sullivan stated that she read both the meeting agenda AND the Board packet and still couldn't discern the "general scope and type of consulting work" approved on January 11. I'm extremely skeptical of this claim. Why? Because the Director's monthly report was in the meeting packet, and it included the following statement under the Community Engagement section of the report:

"In a Special Board meeting on December 7th the LLD Board met with 3 consulting firms to meet the company representatives and to understand how each firm might approach a community engagement project for the LLD. The Board directed Administration to call for proposals from each firm. The Board is to discuss the proposals at the January 11th meeting."

I'm appalled that Sullivan read this statement and still had the nerve to tell the Attorney General - and voters - that she couldn't determine the purpose.

Smoke and Mirrors

It can take months for the PAC to review and rule on complaints, so the library's unlikely to receive a response to Sullivan's complaint before the election. I'm sure she knew that when she filed it.

I think she planned to use it as one more weapon in her bag of dirty campaign tricks. She's certainly broadcast the investigation on the Patch and on her Facebook page. A number of those posts are worded to sound like fact even though they aren't. For example, in a March 11 Facebook post, Sullivan stated "In sum, the Board did not give proper notice to taxpayers." That might sound like a fact but it's not. Without a ruling from the PAC, it's merely Sullivan's opinion, and as far as I know, she's not an expert on OMA.

In fact, Sullivan has a record of making false OMA claims against the library. After the Board's February 22, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting, she wrote an article for the Patch called "Should I have placed the entire Lisle Library Board under citizen's arrest?" In it, she claimed the Board violated OMA at least twice during the meeting, but those lies were easily disproved. The article was later removed.

In the meantime, this is just one more part of the smokescreen that Marjorie Bartelli and Liz Sullivan have created to hide their true agenda: they want to slash library services, resources and programs - regardless of what the majority of residents want.

How do I know that? Current library Trustee Thomas Hummel strongly supports Bartelli and Sullivan. He has publicly stated that his goal is to slash the library's tax levy until it's as close to zero as possible. That would require huge cuts in the library's budget. After working with Hummel for several years, I firmly believe he would only endorse Bartelli and Sullivan if they shared this goal.

Huff, Sehy, and Swistak: The Best Candidates for Library Candidate

Please check out my candidate Facebook page and Daily Herald candidate profile to learn more about my accomplishments as an LLD Trustee, and my commitment to the responsible stewardship of your tax dollars. My Facebook page includes a list of Bartelli and Sullivan's lies, and more information about those lies.

I also encourage you to check out the Facebook pages of my colleagues, John Gardner Huff and Emily Swistak. John and Emily are both committed to maximizing the impact of your tax dollars while providing a great library for our community. I'm proud to be running alongside them.

On April 4, please vote Huff, Sehy, and Swistak for honest and open government!