11/13/2017
Leah Bartelt
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
500 S 2nd Street
Springfield, IL 62701
RE: OMA Request for Review 2017 PAC 49875
Response #2
Dear Mrs. Bartelt,
In regard to Mr. Tedfords response on behalf of the city of Newton dated 11/6/17 I would like to make the
following comments:
Evidently Mr. Tedford is not familiar with the requirements of the Illinois open meeting act or else he would
know that the fact that the city does not have a deed in hand is irrelevant and what matters is if the city
has taken “final action” on the purchase prior to a public vote. The irrefutable evidence that final action
was taken prior to a vote is the signed purchase contract dated 8/30/17 and the paid receipt dated 9/1/17.
Mr. Tedford also is evidently not familiar with the obligations entailed with the signing of a purchase
contract, A careful reading of said contract will show that no further action was required by the city on
this transaction for the purchase to be completed and that there is no contingency clause and no provision
for the buyer to have the purchase price returned because of a failed vote or any other reason.
To say that the final action on this purchase was not on or before when mayor Bolander signed the
contract on 8/30/17 is nonsense.
In Mr. Tedford’s version of how the OMA works the city council would be able to take whatever action that
they want in private as long as that sometime in the future they take a vote to “finalize” the action.
Larry Short
Leah Bartelt
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
500 S 2nd Street
Springfield, IL 62701
RE: OMA Request for Review 2017 PAC 49875
Response #2
Dear Mrs. Bartelt,
In regard to Mr. Tedfords response on behalf of the city of Newton dated 11/6/17 I would like to make the
following comments:
Evidently Mr. Tedford is not familiar with the requirements of the Illinois open meeting act or else he would
know that the fact that the city does not have a deed in hand is irrelevant and what matters is if the city
has taken “final action” on the purchase prior to a public vote. The irrefutable evidence that final action
was taken prior to a vote is the signed purchase contract dated 8/30/17 and the paid receipt dated 9/1/17.
Mr. Tedford also is evidently not familiar with the obligations entailed with the signing of a purchase
contract, A careful reading of said contract will show that no further action was required by the city on
this transaction for the purchase to be completed and that there is no contingency clause and no provision
for the buyer to have the purchase price returned because of a failed vote or any other reason.
To say that the final action on this purchase was not on or before when mayor Bolander signed the
contract on 8/30/17 is nonsense.
In Mr. Tedford’s version of how the OMA works the city council would be able to take whatever action that
they want in private as long as that sometime in the future they take a vote to “finalize” the action.
Larry Short
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |