Nov. 05, 2007
Board offers ultimatum, not an olive branch, to ZBA
While the October 30 public hearing to entertain the removal of ZBA Chairman Tom Nelson was notably unprecedented, the outcome of this trial-like proceeding was equally unexpected and puzzling. The testimony of witnesses, including Nelson himself, may have vindicated the ZBA Chairman's actions and reputation. However, the Board of Trustees’ refusal to vote then and there to acquit Nelson of the charges raises questions about the purpose of the whole costly and arduous exercise.
Woerner tries to put favorable spin on outcome
Statements in the local papers and a press release, publicly issued on Friday, suggest President Mike Woerner wants residents to believe that the board’s action was motivated by a desire to “heal” and to “start a new day.” Seasoned BOT watchers are not convinced by Woerner and some Trustees’ efforts to spin the hearing and its outcome as a bridge-building exercise. If reconciliation and renewal are the objectives, realtor and long-time Hinsdale resident John Bohnen, a vocal supporter of Nelson and the ZBA, wonders why the Board has indefinitely suspended the vote to clear Nelson of charges and, instead, submitted a list of demands to the entire ZBA. “I think that everyone--the citizens of our village, Tom Nelson, and the members of the ZBA--deserves an up-or-down vote, and without that there will be no healing and no closure,” said Bohnen. “How are the ZBA members going to serve the public with a scimitar wielded by the Board of Trustees hanging over their heads?”
Haarlow: BOT offers “an ultimatum, not a compromise”
ZBA member and hearing witness Bill Haarlow views the outcome as a tactical ploy by some Village officials. "By the conclusion of the trial early Wednesday morning, it was clear that the Village had failed to make its case against Tom Nelson,” said Haarlow. “Even though they held all the cards in this kangaroo court, the trustees who've been out to get Tom couldn't justify firing him as the ZBA Chairman. Instead, the Woerner and the Trustees tried to save face by suggesting that they were offering an olive branch. But what they offered was an ultimatum, not a compromise.”
Trustee Smith rejects BOT resolution and demands up-or-down vote on Nelson
In a surprise development, trustee Mike Smith issued a statement on Friday, which enumerated his concerns about the draft resolution Trustees were sending to Tom Nelson and the whole ZBA. Smith stated that the remedy Woerner and Trustee’s proffered was misapplied and asked for clarification of its legality. “The ZBA Chairman, Tom Nelson, was on trial, not the ZBA,” Smith stated on the Hinsdale Talks blog. “This resolution is required of the [ZBA] and not [of] Mr. Nelson. I believe asking the [ZBA] to ratify this could be a violation of their oath of office.”
In addition, Smith asked Woerner to publicly retract the statement that the resolution was a “unanimous opinion of the Board of Trustees,” as Smith was “now opposed to this outcome.” To explain the dissent in the Board’s ranks, Smith suggested that Woerner may wish to rely again on Urquhart, the political strategists and media consultants the village has employed to write press releases, Board speeches and statements and to advise village officials on communications with residents. Smith stated that Woerner rejected the retraction request and another of Smith’s demands--to put an up-or-down vote on the Nelson charges on Tuesday’s (11/06) BOT meeting agenda.
Musso: "People need to wake up"
Resident Tanner Musso interpreted the Board’s demand that the ZBA not entertain planned development appeals as another attempt to curtail the ZBA’s powers over such projects and thereby limit residents’ rights. She called other citizens to action to prevent such a concentration of power within the Board of Trustees. “People need to wake up and get involved,” said Musso. “If there isn’t a ZBA in this town, we’re all going to be in trouble. [The Village Board] will call everything a PUDand no one will be able to do anything about it. Residents are going to lose a lot of the value of their homes if a big development goes up in their backyard.”