East Central Reporter

During a recent special meeting of the Village of Rochester, Mayor Suerdieck did not disclose details about a settlement agreement. This decision has raised questions among attendees and observers regarding transparency.

The issue was highlighted by a previous report indicating that taxpayers might be responsible for an estimated $175,000 due to actions involving the mayor. Concerns were expressed about the lack of information provided to the public during the meeting, which some believe contradicts section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act. The section requires that final actions be preceded by a public recital of relevant matters.

When asked if the settlement document would be made available at the meeting, attendees were informed by the village attorney that they would need to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The attorney maintained that their process complied with the Open Meetings Act.

Citing Allen v. Clark County Park District case law, critics argue that Mayor Suerdieck did not adhere to legal requirements, leaving citizens uninformed about specifics such as whether the settlement involved monetary compensation or other terms like liquor license fee reductions or tax abatements.

The situation draws parallels with Springfield School Board 186 v. Attorney General case law, where compliance included providing access to agreements through public websites. In contrast, Mayor Suerdieck's refusal to discuss or disclose any agreement details is seen as conflicting with this precedent.

It has been revealed post-meeting that the settlement amount stands at $170,000, which will burden taxpayers since village insurance coverage was denied. Calls for Mayor Suerdieck's resignation have been made both during and after the meeting by board members and others present.

A review request will be filed with the Attorney General concerning potential violations related to open deliberations as mandated by state policy under Sec. 1 of OMA. Observers noted that no discussion occurred on record before voting on motions during open sessions.

Further updates are anticipated once more information is obtained via FOIA requests regarding this matter.