Farmers Weekly Review

By Stephanie Irvine

The case of the missing documents leading to calls for a halt to demolition of the former Will County Courthouse has been solved.

And the courthouse will continue to come down.

Will County Board members seeking documents related to the bid to demolish the old courthouse building in Joliet, along with those attempting to save it from already-started demolition, met January 2 to try once again to secure a Stay of Demolition.

Unlike the meeting scheduled December 28, which was canceled after a lack of quorum due to Board Member Plainfield Democrat Mica Freeman’s planned departure, the January 2 meeting moved forward with 17 of the 22 board members initially attending. She left before the earlier meeting, wanting to thwart a quorum and a vote on the issue.

Ultimately, the allegedly missing documents were found, and the stay of demolition failed, with 12 out of the remaining 16 attending voting against it after Janet Ortiz, D-Joliet, left.

During the meeting, emotions ran high among members of the County Board and the County Executive Bertino-Tarrant and her Chief of Staff Michael Mahoney. They debated whether documents related to the bid were made available in a timely fashion and whether the board could direct the Will County State’s Attorney to file an injunction or lawsuit on behalf of the County Board against the county executive.

“Just to address some of this, the missing documents, if anyone could tell me what documents they think they are missing, I would gladly provide them,” he said. “Unfortunately, it is just a good conspiracy theory. There are no missing documents.

“The contract with American Demolition has been reviewed by the State’s Attorney’s office. It has been reviewed. It is a standard AIA document for construction work. What that means is that its industry standard for documentation and contracting on construction work.”

Mahoney further added that the bidding process was public and anyone could have attended.

Board Member Dan Butler, R-Frankfort, has been requesting two pages that he believed to be missing from what was provided, leading to calls to halt the demolition until they got them.

Among the issues in the alleged missing pages was whether the costs outlined in the demolition bid were “all in.”

“I have personally handed bids to folks who said they haven’t gotten it,” Bertino-Tarrant said. ” We won’t make anyone FOIA anything; we’ll give you whatever you want.”

Steve Balich, R-Orland Park, who was not advocating for the stay of demolition, wanted the alleged missing documents provided.

“The thing I’m hearing from people on the committee is that there’s two pages of missing documents and county executive’s saying they got them,” he said. “They said they don’t got them. They tell me they’re missing documents. I believe them. I’m not calling you (Mahoney) a liar. But that means I kind of believe you, but why can’t we get them to talk to you and find out what they think is missing?

“And then you just provide it to them, and we don’t have to have special meetings. This meeting is dumb.”

Mahoney furnished the alleged missing document during the meeting, reiterating that all documents had been provided. “Missing documents is a fun buzzword,” he said. “This is an all-in contract. The costs are set. There are allowances. There is an agreed-to amount if there are extra costs.”

“This piece of paper, this is the document I was looking for,” Butler said. “This was not provided to me when I got the contract and that is cross-referenced in the contract. Explaining the document and handing me the document are two different things.”

Board Member Sherry Williams, D-Crest Hill, agreed.

“We should be more thoughtful when we’re making decisions as large as this,” she said. “That information was not available.”

Board Member Meta Mueller, D- Aurora, who said she previously had worked as a construction project manager, told those assembled she had reviewed the bid and all associated contracts in depth because she believed it would be coming to her Capital Improvements Committee. She said she did not see any issues with what was agreed upon by the county.

Board Member Julie Berkowicz, R-Naperville, said the demolition bid issue was another in a list of concerns the board has had with the County Executive’s Office since Bertino-Tarrant took over in 2020.

“The biggest issue we’ve had is transparency and accuracy,” she said. Berkowicz raised several questions regarding the progress of demolition and lack of involvement, citing that she wanted to tour the building but was unable to do so until after demolition had begun.

Lively discussion continued as to whether documents were provided, what was the fiscally responsible choice, and what would happen if demolition stopped.

At one point, Diaz called for an amendment to the motion to Stay the Demolition. She requested the Will County State’s Attorney sue the appropriate party to create a 90-day injunction, because a resolution might not have enough teeth.

“Who do you want me to sue?” said Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Tatroe, perplexed by the request. “Do you want the county to sue the county? A lawsuit has two parties.”

Diaz said she wanted the ability to create a report and do what the ad-hoc committee had been formed to do without further demolition occurring. After a discussion on who would be sued, why they would be sued, and if they could be sued, Diaz’s proposed amendment failed.

Representatives of the Labor Unions, including Doc Gregory of Operating Engineers Local 150, wrote in to public comment to urge the county to continue with demolition proceedings. In Gregory’s email, he reminded the county of a Project Labor Agreement in place.

Mahoney said a stay of demolition would violate the PLA, opening up the county to financial vulnerability. He also noted that Joliet would take over demolition if the county stopped because city officials would consider it a nuisance building. The county would then be liable for demolition costs that the City of Joliet would incur for taking it over.

Resident Saul Brass was present at the meeting and questioned the purpose of the meeting.

“I’m having difficulty understanding what’s going on,” he said. “I know the county has already voted at least once that the building will be demolished. As I was driving in this morning, I noticed the large holes in the building, dust flying, fences around. I’m thinking to myself, ‘What is going on here?’”

Several area residents wrote in to support the continued demolition, including former board member Herb Brooks, Jr., who previously sat on the county board and voted for the demolition originally in 2019.

Joliet resident Margie Cepon expressed frustration that these meetings were even occurring, and fellow resident Archie Gavin called the stay a moot point, as demolition had already been decided upon and was taking place.

An advocate for keeping the old courthouse, Board Member Jackie Traynere, D-Bolingbrook, said of the final decision, “I’m sad.”

After the vote, tensions were still high, especially during County Board Chair Judy Ogalla’s closing statements, in which she noted that although she was in favor of the demolition of the courthouse, members of the board were unhappy with their ability to get information from the County Executive’s office.

“We would not be here today if the answers were given all along. This (as of 2020) is a brand new board. We need to have the respect given to the County Board members that their questions are just as important.

“County board members have a right to ask their questions and have them answered. Why couldn’t he get that document when the questions were asked? We were not given the information. The County Board, their job, is to ask all the questions until they’re satisfied. That’s our role. To make sure the checks and balances are done, that transparency is provided.”

While making her closing statement, Ogalla was repeatedly interrupted by Bertino-Tarrant, who took offense at Ogalla’s statement that she found questions raised by the board met with condescension from Mahoney.

Executive Bertino-Tarrant apologized to Ogalla for her interruptions prior to making some comments of her own:

“We have been transparent. We have given everyone everything they asked for. We do not put things on the agenda. To say this is an issue from our office is wrong,” Bertino-Tarrant said, adding the board took a year before creating an ad hoc committee to review the 2019 decision to demolish the former courthouse.

With the Stay of Demolition failing, demolition on the old courthouse will continue as scheduled.

Stephanie Irvine is a freelance reporter.