Someone just called me from Brookens, where the County Board just went into closed session.
The meeting opened with an open session in which Deedrich's attorney, Glen Stanko, issued a "sternly worded" defense of Deedrich.
This was followed by the introduction of Ruth Wyman, who announced that Deedrich filed suit today, against either Champaign County and/or the County Board, alleging defamation of character and other things. (There's no case available in the Circuit Clerk's publicly available records yet)
As my source put it, Deedrich "didn't make any friends" with the double-barrelled blast of attorney.
More later, as I get updates.
UPDATE: DEEDRICH FIRED at 9:58 p.m.
Deedrich was fired in a 19-5 vote. I'll have more in the comments. (John Farney)
Is Wyman also representing Deedrich in any way, or was she just reporting the information so the board had it?
My source gave me the impression Wyman was representing Deedrich in his lawsuit against the County.
I've been at the meeting - it is still ongoing and will continue into the night. I plan to go back after I post this.
A few updates - first, Ruth Wyman is Curt Deedrich's attorney in his suit against the county. The suit is a "Complaint for Declaratory Judgement" that lists 29 allegations of unlawful acts committed by "Champaign County Illinois (county board members, county employees and others) who allegedly interfered with Deedrich operating his office. The suit seeks a declaration that the actions of the County in interfering with and attempting to interfere with the office of SOA are unlawful; that Deedrich seeks an injunction against further interference with the office of SOA directed to the COunty Board, States's Attorney Rietz, Asst. State's Attoney McGrath and the County of Champaign; and seeks further relief as necessary. The lawsuit is10 pages long and supporting documents are well over 100 pages of emails, memos, reviews and newspaper articles.
Second, there was 23 county board members here to start the meeting (not here were Benzyl, Sapp, Mellin and Anderson). Three voted against going into closed session - Gross, Putman and Cowart. At 8:45 p.m. a visibly mad Claudia Gross stormed out of the meeting (slammed door, etc). At some time before now, Sapp arrived, so there are still 23 board members there.
Third, Putman and Wiebel were in the hallway upset with each other. Putman then told the crowd waiting that it was going to be a long, unpleasant night.
Thats where we stand. I'll report more when the meeting is over.
The lawsuit is10 pages long and supporting documents are well over 100 pages of emails, memos, reviews and newspaper articles.
So much for Deedrich's claim in the press that he had no clue what the problem is.
Putman is a shill for Dems. She doesn't give a hoot about that office going down the tubes, just that one of her own is embroiled.
Wow.
If there weren't 18 votes before...
With the vote, looks like Deedrich needs to go find a job... instead of having one handed to him.
DEEDRICH'S OUT!!!
The vote to remove Deedrich was 19 yes, 5 no. The vote was as follows:
YES: Doenitz, Jay, Sapp, James, Hunt, Tapley, Schroeder, Jones, Knott, Moser, O'Connor, Gladney, Wiebel, Putman, Langenheim, Betz, Beckett, Wysocki and McGinty.
NO: Cowart, Carter, Hogue, Richards, Anderson
The only comment from a board member when out of closed session was from Putman who said that "she wants to hear Curt's side of the story" and that the only way to do that is by voting to remove tonight so Deedrich could ask for a hearing on his removal.
The next step for Deedrich is to request a hearing on his removal (request must be made in the next 21 days). The board then will hear from Curt in response to the 5 charges of misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance that were used to remove him (sorry, I don't have a copy of those charges, I'm sure they will be released at some point or the newspaper may already have them). That hearing must take place within 30 days of the request. That hearing could result in a reversal of tonight's actions (a reversal is unlikely). This will head to court. Deedrich's attorney Stanko had already told the board thatin three previous cases where a SOA was removed for mis-, mal -or non-feasance, the county has lost in court and suffered financial damages.
Appointed as interim SOA is Joseph Meents, an employee of the SOA office. He will serve a 60 day appointment or until a permanent replacement is found. Weibel already anticipates a second 60 day appointment so a proper search may be conducted.
I have the full Deedrich lawsuit and will read through it. If someone has a suggestion on how to scan and post this 100 or so page document, I'd be glad to turn it over to them.
Hmmm... could you use something with OCR capability, like Adobe Acrobat?
The lawsuit will be filed in my office because the county is being sued. we will scan it and make it available on the website.
Soooo.... How many of the 19 people that voted about an hour ago to fire Deedrich, also voted FOR him a few years back?
I know the County Board has changed somewhat in the last few years, but there are a number of people that have been there for both votes.
Names, please.
Thanks to John for keeping us updated. I hope IP will post a copy of the resolution here as soon as he has it.
Soooo.... How many of the 19 people that voted about an hour ago to fire Deedrich, also voted FOR him a few years back?
I know the County Board has changed somewhat in the last few years, but there are a number of people that have been there for both votes.
Names, please.
Let me get this straight. If a County Board member votes initially votes in favor of an appointment and is later dissatisfied with the person's job performance, are you saying it's better that they stonewall and insist that there's no problem?
I believe Wysocki, Putman, Betz and Langenheim voted to appoint Deedrich three years ago and voted in favor of tonight's termination resolution.
First meeting to consider the appointment was april 29, 2004 12-12, beckett the only Dem against him
Second meeting , May 6, 2004 was 14-13. beckett once again the only Dem against
When it came time to chastise him april 20, 2006, Jay, O'Connor, and Gross voted no. Jay and O'connor i believe wanted him canned, Gross, of course, has been deedrich's biggest supporter.
Thanks to John for keeping us updated. I hope IP will post a copy of the resolution here as soon as he has it.
Thanks for the compliment. I don't mind doing it at all. Brookens is only a few blocks from home.
We'll put a link to the County Clerk's copy of the lawsuit as soon as they have it scanned and available - I think that will be the easiest all around.
Speaking of newspapers being behind the times on getting the latest and greatest information to the public...
Excellent work. Props to John Farney for going the extra mile here.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Newspapers by nature are not real time. If News-Gazette cared to be more than just a newspaper and upload the Web site, then they probably should have this story. But they haven't shown much interest in the Web, so they choose to make you read their paper the next day.
Criticizing the News-Gazette for not going above and beyond is fair. Criticizing the nature of what they choose to be (a newspaper) is debatable.
I think the news paper will have more information also. IP sure has been way ahead of everyone else on this one.
"Let me get this straight. If a County Board member votes initially votes in favor of an appointment and is later dissatisfied with the person's job performance, are you saying it's better that they stonewall and insist that there's no problem?"
No. My request did not have any underlying motive. With Deedrich, it was quite obvious there was a problem, so your statement about "stonewalling" doesn't apply in this case. I just wanted some names, that's all.
I don't think it's a particularly good tactic to go into a hearing like this by handing out copies of a lawsuit. What's the County Board supposed to say to that? We're scared by your lawsuit and will not back off and allow you to act as you please? I don't even think this is a final decision until he's either appealed to the Board or committee that hears these things and received a decision, or his appellate rights have lapsed.
I'm still hoping someone who has the resolution will post it! Anyone? I looked on the County Board website but can't find anything other than the agenda.
Do you have an expected date that the Deedrich Claim will be scanned and online?
There are 74 pages of documents scanned and available here.
I don't know if that's what you want - Deedrich's appeal/hearing hasn't been filed yet, I don't think.