Shelby Co. (ECWd) –
When an attorney claims a violation of the law took place and then later insists she did not say what video proves she said, she should resign.
Deborah Riley, the City of Windsor attorney made a clear statement that there was a violation of law, referring to one of the local EMTs. When I challenged her on that allegation and asked if it was an “alleged” violation or an actual violation, she doubled down and said there was a violation, not an alleged violation (see the first video).
The allegation was that an EMT violated HIPPA and the attorney claimed there was an ongoing investigation. She went as far as alleging the violation was turned into the Illinois Department of Public Health, the agency that issues EMTs their license.
The attorney absolutely stated there was a violation of law and only after being called out on that as being improper for an attorney did she refer to it as an alleged violation. During public comment, I stated she should resign due to her improper comment and she then shifted gears to claim she “alleged” the law was violated with the implication being she never said there was a violation. (see the second video).
A Freedom of Information Act Request to IDPH for complaints against Sonny Ross of the Windsor Ambulance resulted in no documents.
“No records responsive to your request were identified. The Department has no record for Sonny Ross of the Windsor, Illinois Ambulance service.”
So unless IDPH is playing games with our request, the attorney’s allegation that a complaint was turned into IDPH is without any merit. How she came to such an understanding should be exposed to the city council because the truth of the matter is there is no document to support there is an investigation on the matter.
Not surprising to us, the City was also unable to produce any record of any kind to support there was any complaint of a violation, let alone a HIPPA violation.
As if the above matters are not enough, the attorney was improperly hired and appears to ignore the law when it benefits her pocketbook.
During a prior meeting when her hiring took place, the Mayor stated the following, according to the minutes.
“Mayor Dona said that first appointment will be City Attorney Deb Riley and there will be no vote on this because it is one that he makes at his discretion.“
No vote? Why was the city attorney silent on this matter, considering such a position that no vote will be taken violates the law.
(65 ILCS 5/3.1-30-5) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1-30-5)
Sec. 3.1-30-5. Appointed officers in all municipalities.
(a) The mayor or president, as the case may be, by and with the advice and consent of the city council or the board of trustees, may appoint (1) a treasurer (if the treasurer is not an elected position in the municipality), (2) a collector, (3) a comptroller, (4) a marshal, (5) an attorney or a corporation counsel, (6) one or more purchasing agents and deputies, (7) the number of auxiliary police officers determined necessary by the corporate authorities, (8) police matrons, (9) a commissioner of public works, (10) a budget director or a budget officer, and (11) other officers necessary to carry into effect the powers conferred upon municipalities.
We find it most interesting that not only was the hired attorney silent on the violation of the law by the Mayor, but we also contend her appointment should be null and void because there was insufficient information on the agenda to inform the public the city was going to appoint an attorney.
With an attorney that misrepresents the facts on her own statements, the issues in question, and allows what appear to be clear violations of law to take place, she has no business as the cities attorney in our opinion.