Woerner and officials let Urquhart do the talking
Below is a transcript of ZBA member Kim Angelo's expose on the Village President and Village officials' reliance on an aggressive PR tactical communications firm Urquhart Media LLC. Angelo's statement was read at the 11/06 BOT Meeting. See recording of Angelo's remarks on Hinsdale Talks >
After learning about 3 weeks ago that Trustee Willam’s statement as president pro tem at the September 18 BOT meeting was prepared by something called Urquhart Media LLC, in disbelief I FOIA’d all communication between the Village and this entity. What I received were 79 pages of material spanning from August 30 to October 23, not including draft copies. So far, they have been the principal authors, by my count, of at least 7 press releases, or statements, read at the Village Board meetings, by the president, as his own.
Urquhart has sanctioned and virtually instantaneous access to the Village President, select trustees, village manager, assistant manager, community development strategist, MIS administration and communication coordinator, both village attorneys, the chief of police, and the deputy chief of police.
When the Administration and Community Affairs Committee met Sept. 4 at 6 pm, they approved an agreement with this firm not to exceed $10,000 for services related to a development of a comprehensive communications strategy for Hinsdale. 1.5 hours later at the Village Board meeting, this agreement passed as the last item on the consent agenda.
What’s in a name? The BBC series “House of Cards” introduced the fictional character Francis Urquhart, a contemporaneous British PM with a Machiavellian personality. He is variously described as reptilian, deceitful and murderous. You be the judge. Their website ponders “As to whether it is inappropriate for a communications consulting firm to take as its namesake one of the most malevolent characters in the history of politics…you might think that. We couldn’t possibly comment.” Tongue in cheek, yes, but also disturbing.
Who is Dan Proft, Urquhart’s founding partner, the village deals with exclusively and why do his tentacles reach into every facet of town governanace? He is the full-time press spokesman and campaign strategist for the “Reform” mayor of Cicero, Larry Dominick. Mr. Dominick’s reform includes doubling of legal fees since Ed Vyrdolyak’s firm was dismissed; the receipt of an order of protection; a sexual harassment suit filed by a Village employee; and conversations with reputed organized crime figures caught on FBI surveillance tapes; a full time job indeed.
Why would such a heavyweight (he also ran Alan Keyes’ and Steve Rauschenbergers’ unsuccessful campaigns) bother with our little hamlet for a measly $10,000? Maybe because his suggested bounty is closer to $100,000. Up to $23,000 would come from the village for educational materials/content. The rest would come from in kind help and $60,000 raised and spent through a campaign committee for the sales tax and electric utility referenda. Plus, he wants a “win bonus” if the more problematic sales tax referendum passes.
As an example of this value added talent, he recommends that the village “set up a community based group perceived to be independent of the Village to drive the train on the sales tax question, and for the village to lay relatively low on the matter.” Are there any volunteers out there to provide cover for the Board?? Another example of his invaluable obfuscation, I mean, communication services, would be his advice that “PR should be focused on those people who must stand for office and police and other departments as the facts dictate should be used to reinforce the vision of the elected officials, by acting as the implementation tools.” Was that in the job description for our officers? Well, we now know what’s in it for Mr. Proft, at least through February, but what’s in it for us?
We live in a town full of intelligent and knowledgeable people. Our president and trustees are representative of these qualities, and so is the village staff and all departments of the village. Why must the policy and pronouncements of the president and some trustees be filtered through the calculation and cynical triangulations of a political spinmeister? As an elected official each of you has an obligation to show your true face to your constituents. If it pains you, then don’t run for office. Without going into further detail tonight, the evident focus on image-burnishing contained in these FOIAd communications comes perilously close to electioneering, which might be looked askance upon by taxpayers and those charged with campaign finance enforcement. I urge you not to renew Mr. Proft’s retainer and to scale back his activities. Trust the residents to make the right decisions on the merits of the referenda and not the hype.
Angelo on ZBA ultimatum and Board's refusal to vote on Nelson charges
Changing hats for a minute, I wish to comment on the events of last Tuesday evening as a member of the ZBA. Reading through the Village’s press release of Nov. 2, you have to wonder if the author (Mr. Proft, perhaps) was at the same hearing, or any hearing for that matter. It is wildly euphoric in the vague description of what transpired. It is also replete with feel good references like “common sense solution”; “principles at stake”; “steadfast commitment”; “civic-minded residents”; “hallmarks of my administration”; and oh, yes, “infrastructure needs”. You can’t keep a good PR guy down. What really happened was an unprecedented, de facto trial over 6 and a half hours, the intent of which was to discredit Tom Nelson, impose on him the burden of huge legal fees, and intimidate present and future members of boards and commissions. If you want to find the agenda for that evening, good luck, because it’s been pulled from the village website. Just about the only thing not on the website.
The Board’s public relief and self-congratulation must stem from the fact that no vote needed to be taken in public on Tom’s dismissal. For anyone there, the evidence clearly exonerated Tom and a negative vote would no doubt have been overturned on appeal, given President Woerner’s refusal to recuse himself and other serious procedural irregularities. Instead, the Board punted and issued 5 demands of Tom and the ZBA written in closed session and presented to the multitudes (approximately 250 people) in open session. The vote on Tom was to be held in abeyance indefinitely until he and the ZBA did or did not comply.
I have a problem with this. #1, I wasn’t on trial. # 2, I wasn’t served notice, #3, I wasn’t presented with a witness list, #4, I didn’t have a chance to retain counsel, #s 5 and 6, I had no opportunity to present evidence or cross examine witnesses, nor did any of the other ZBA members. In fact, the public hearing which was required for Tom’s dismissal was a public hearing with no public participation. But hey, let the healing begin! If this doesn’t sound bizarre, there’s more.
The Board came out of closed session announced a final action, but failed to vote on it, in violation of the Open Meetings Act. President Woerner announced that the trustees had been polled in closed session, which would also be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Finally, contradicting its own procedures (item J on the agenda) the Board failed to vote on whether there was cause to remove Tom as ZBA Chair. Taken together, I believe these facts are sufficient to nullify the entire proceeding on October 30 and render any resolution void. As a ZBA member, I took an oath to uphold state and municipal law as required. Any demand of fealty by the village board would be superfluous and coercive.