Committee of the Whole - Garbage Discussion - Part III

Not a ‘Done Deal”

What was ultimately most frustrating was that there was a presumption during public comment that this was a ‘done deal’. I do see where people got that impression but such was simply not the case. This was evidenced by the board’s discussion and after Trustee Kapteyn’s presentation was concluded. The first to comment was Trustee Lucas that she thought we should keep the garbage and attempt to find ways to make it more economical. The remainder of the board concluded that Trustee Kapteyn’s findings as currently comprised didn’t warrant a change to privatization at this time without any additional information suggesting otherwise. Had this been a done deal there would have been no questions of Trustee Kapteyn and no discussion of the board.

As I mentioned at the meeting, this was not a done deal as I simply haven’t even discussed the matter with 4 of the six Trustees. There was no preordained consensus of the Trustees entering the meeting. That is why we have board meetings. The trustees are limited by the Illinois Open Meetings Act from discussing Village business in groups without notice of a public meeting. The meeting was a ‘Committee of the Whole Meeting’ whereby a particular committee member or Mayor advances a measure for the board to discuss and potentially vote on at such later date so long as the board agrees and is satisfied with the information presented to vote on the matter.

I submit that if this board did not have a discussion regarding privatization we wouldn’t be doing our jobs as Trustees for this Village. I understand that the perception that since we were discussing Allied Waste as a private company in particular that this was a done deal. It should have been made explicitly clear that Allied Waste was the company that was chosen to serve as a basis of having a privatization discussion.

My feelings

In my "regular job" as an attorney the decisions that I make on behalf of clients and/or arguments I make to the Court must be informed, intelligent and based in fact. The basis for making certain recommendations or arguments must be submitted with specificity. I am not trained as an accountant, doctor, appraiser, psychiatrist, etc. and when my decision or the decision of the Court rests on issues pertaining to issues outside my relative expertise I hire an expert in one of these fields to do an analysis, make a recommendation, and assist providing the explanation on why a course of action is necessary or warranted.

I believe that for the Village to really explore this issue an expert, whether be an accountant or otherwise, be hired to determine what is necessary for the Village for the to continue to providing the garbage service. It must be determined how much will it cost the resident to continue to provide the service while maintaining the trucks and other costs of operation. I am not an accountant or business evaluator but I believe that a “price / cost analysis” needs to be performed for a period of the next 15 years, taking into consideration the lifespan of the trucks as a consistent and reoccurring cost to ultimate inform the board of this cost the residents need to be charged.

I think everyone has to agree that there exists a theotretical situtation where the cost to the village and the residents is just too great that privatization is necessary. However, I don’t know without a professional opinion we the board are qualified to make a determination that we are certainly in such a situation. Accordingly, without more I cannot support privatization at this time.

Stay Tuned