Four trustees paid the bills the board had deadlocked on. In the hour before, the mayor said the agenda is hers to set.

At roll call the names read were Barry, Boudreau, Vaughn, Crockett, Gesky and Zimbelman. Boudreau, Crockett, Gesky and Zimbelman answered "here." No answer is heard for Barry or Vaughn, and neither appears in any roll call after. The captions do not name who chaired. The Village Code has the president take the chair when present (§ 1-6-5, Rule 1), and the mayor is listed as present at the committee meetings that ended minutes before. The roll calls list trustees only. Four trustees are a majority of Manteno's seven-member board (§ 1-6-4), so there was a quorum.

Why two were missing, as stated on the record. During the committee hour, a speaker defending full payment of the auditors said Trustee Barry, the finance chair, ⚠ "cannot come to 7:00 meetings" and that two trustees ⚠ "couldn't be here because they work." A trustee answered that he cannot attend 5:00 meetings because of his own work schedule. The 7:00 a.m. committee slot is the regular schedule for these committees; the 8:00 a.m. special meeting was set to follow it.

Sources: recording, 1:07:30–1:08:00 (roll call), 22:30–23:00, 1:24:00; Manteno Code § 1-6-4, § 1-6-5 Rule 1; committee minutes, attendance.

The roll calls, in order:
Item 3, Lee's Rental, "Remaining Balance... for Portable Toilet Rental Services in the Amount of $1,095": moved by Boudreau, seconded by Zimbelman. Asked what the amount covered, a voice answered ⚠ "That is for June's bills." Boudreau, Zimbelman, Crockett, Gesky: yes, 4–0.
Item 4, Green Forensic Accounting Solutions, "Final Audit Invoice in the Amount of $12,270.92": moved by Boudreau, seconded by Gesky. Boudreau, Gesky, Crockett, Zimbelman: yes, 4–0.
Item 5, "Payment of Bills/Invoices in the Amount of $367,125.39": moved by Gesky, seconded by Crockett. Gesky, Crockett, Boudreau, Zimbelman: yes, 4–0.
Adjournment: moved by Boudreau, seconded by Gesky, 4–0 on a roll call.

The context from August 3. On August 3 the mayor called one bills motion of $382,330.39, which folded these two disputed vendors into the regular bills, and it failed 2–4; the trustees had asked to split them out. On August 12 a trustee said: ⚠ "We tried to pay the bills on Monday, but you didn't let us separate it out. So, that's why we're here on Wednesday." The three amounts voted on August 12 add to $380,491.31, which is $1,839.08 less than the August 3 motion. Our August 3 page has that night's vote.

Sources: recording, 1:08:00–1:10:00 and 1:25:00–1:25:30, and 22:00; posted notice, items 3 to 5.

The posted notice says only that "a special meeting of the Board of Trustees... shall be held." It does not say who called it. It has no "agenda provided by" line; by comparison, the Village's August 20 special meeting agenda reads "Agenda provided by Call for Special Meeting and posted by Village Clerk," signed by Steven Orth. The August 12 notice carries a handwritten mark and the date 8/7/2026 in the lower corner.

The recording points to trustees. During the agenda discussion, the chair of that item, Trustee Gesky (the minutes attribute the question to him), asked whether the right way to get an item heard is to ⚠ "call a special meeting like we're doing here in writing by two trustees." A trustee later said ⚠ "I'll just start calling special meetings to do our agendas," and the answer to a question put to the mayor included that the clerk ⚠ "will approve your agendas if they follow the law. He approved this one." No one on the recording said the mayor called this meeting.

What we don't have. The written call itself: who signed it, when it reached the clerk, and how the president and trustees were served. It is not on the Village's website. Our earlier pages described this meeting as called under § 1-6-3; the recording supports that reading but does not show the document.

Sources: recording, 43:30–44:30, 45:30, 46:30–47:00; August 12 notice; August 20 agenda.

What the law says. "Public notice of any special meeting except a meeting held in the event of a bona fide emergency... shall be given at least 48 hours before such meeting, which notice shall also include the agenda" (5 ILCS 120/2.02(a)). Notice is given "by posting a copy of the notice at the principal office of the body holding the meeting"; a body with a staff-maintained website must also post it there, but "the failure of a public body to post on its website notice of any meeting or the agenda of any meeting shall not invalidate any meeting or any actions taken at a meeting" (2.02(b)). Posting on the website also satisfies the rule that the notice be "continuously available for public review during the entire 48-hour period preceding the meeting" (2.02(c)).

What the record shows. The notice includes an agenda, and the three votes taken match its items. The paper notice is hand-dated August 7, and the scanned file's internal creation date is the afternoon of Friday, August 7. If it was posted at Village Hall that day, it was up well over 48 hours before 8:00 a.m. Wednesday. The copy on the Village website, however, carries a server timestamp of 8:12 a.m. Central on Monday, August 10, which is 47 hours and 48 minutes before the meeting. The committee agenda for the same morning was uploaded between 8:13 and 8:25 a.m. that Monday, in four copies; for the 7:00 a.m. committee meetings that is about 46 to 47 hours ahead, and the same caveat applies.

Why "Open." A server timestamp shows when a file was last written, not when the notice went up on the bulletin board, and the paper posting is what the statute requires. If the website copy was the only one up before Monday morning, it was 12 minutes short of 48 hours on the website; under 2.02(b), a website shortfall alone does not invalidate the meeting. What would settle it: the Village's record of when the notice was posted at Village Hall, and when it was first uploaded.

Sources: 5 ILCS 120/2.02 (read November 3, 2026); posted notice and its file metadata; HTTP headers of the Village's files, checked November 3, 2026.

Manteno Code § 1-6-3: "Special meetings may be held at any time on call of the president or any two (2) or more trustees; such call shall be in writing, duly signed, and shall be presented to the clerk, who shall proceed immediately to cause notice of the same to be served upon the president and trustees in person or by registered letter, and such notice shall describe in brief the nature or object of the call."

Parts of that are visible. A clerk was in office (Steven Orth, through August 28), the mayor said he approved this agenda, and the notice describes the object of the meeting item by item. The mayor attended and chaired, so she had notice in fact. The parts that are not visible: the signed call, and proof that the president and all six trustees were served in person or by registered letter. Trustees Barry and Vaughn were absent; nothing on the recording says whether they were served.

Why it matters. The Village's own lawsuit against four trustees argues that the June 25 special meeting was void because § 1-6-3's clerk steps were not followed. See the lawsuit page and Legal Questions. What would settle it: the written call and the clerk's proof of service, which we are requesting.

Sources: Manteno Code § 1-6-3 (read November 3, 2026, American Legal Publishing); recording, 45:30; posted notice.

On the Village's meetings index, the August 12 "Village Board Special Meeting" row links an agenda and the video, and no minutes. The committee minutes for the same morning were approved September 9 and are posted.

The Open Meetings Act says "a public body shall approve the minutes of its open meeting within 30 days after that meeting or at the public body's second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later" (5 ILCS 120/2.06(b)). For August 12, the later of those dates fell in September.

A possible connection, not confirmed. The September 8 board agenda listed "Regular Meeting Minutes: August 7, 2026," and those minutes failed. There was no meeting on August 7. The Village hosts this meeting's notice under the filename "August-7-2026-Special-Meeting.pdf." Whether the failed "August 7" minutes were this meeting's is not stated anywhere we can find. See September 8.

Sources: Village meetings index, page 2, checked November 3, 2026; September 8 agenda and posted minutes; 5 ILCS 120/2.06(b).

The committee chair (Trustee Boudreau, addressed as "CJ") said the firm sent three bills. The committee had agreed to pay the final one less the cost to Village staff, ⚠ "about $1,300. So, we'd be paying about $12,270.92." The other two, he said, arrived in the last two weeks: one for the firm's own work producing copies without account numbers, and one for a July 14 meeting he said made the auditor fly back from Washington, D.C. He said he did not know what that meeting was and would not pay either. The committee minutes record the deduction as "the amount that was needed to change the Village's bank account numbers," and "some disagreement" over it.

The mayor argued for paying the full bill; the chair answered, ⚠ "I disagree with the mayor's perception of this." She said the firm took the contract not knowing the Village had ⚠ "over 40 bank accounts," that bank account numbers are printed on every check, and that the Village asked the firm to go ⚠ "over and above" its contract. Asked whether she had asked the auditor to come back in the summer, the mayor answered ⚠ "I did not." Before the vote, a voice at the dais warned: ⚠ "Because this was a legal contract, we could end up being sued for this if we don't pay what we agreed to pay."

Context. $13,600 minus $12,270.92 is $1,329.08, which matches "about $1,300." Our July 20 committee page reported a $1,750 deduction discussed then for an attorney's review of the audit, and said we had not reconciled the difference; on August 12 the deduction was described as staff cost for changing account numbers, not the attorney review. The amounts of the two refused charges were not read aloud. Our Audit page has the engagement's history.

Sources: recording, 18:00–23:00 and 1:09:00–1:09:30; Planning & Zoning minutes; posted notice, item 4.

Said in the middle of the exchange over the auditors, after a speaker complained the firm was still not being paid; the captions do not show who said it, and the next voice answered ⚠ "Nonsense." Our Toolbox reports the engagement as a $168,000 fixed contract plus a $20,000 retainer, with $38,640 outstanding as of April 25, 2026, per the Village's own correspondence. That works out to about $149,000 paid by April if the retainer counts toward the total, or about $129,000 if it does not: roughly 79 or 77 percent, not 90. Payments between April and August could close the gap, and we have not seen them.

What would settle it: the Village's payment history to Greene Forensic Accounting Solutions and the three invoices discussed August 12.

Sources: recording, 21:00; Toolbox, section 12; Audit page.

The chair said the committee decided in April to have Lee's Rental remove portable toilets from parks that have permanent restrooms, keeping the units at St. Joe's park and the downtown square, and that the vendor emailed on April 22. He called the saving ⚠ "$1,000 or $1,200 a month. That's almost like $14,000 a year." The mayor, who identified herself in the exchange, said the removal ⚠ "was never brought before the board for a vote," that she told the vendor in April to leave them, and, identifying herself, ⚠ "As the mayor, I have a lot of rights and one of them was to stop the removal of the porta-potties." She put the cost at ⚠ "$100, $95 a month."

Context. The arithmetic holds: $1,000 to $1,200 a month is $12,000 to $14,400 a year. The two figures are likely different units: the bill the board paid was $1,095 for one month (June), which fits the chair's monthly total, while $95 a month fits one unit. The treasurer confirmed a July bill also exists; the chair said he would pay June and July and then put the cancellation to a formal board vote. A trustee said the youth soccer league is paying for its own units at Heritage Park.

Sources: recording, 9:00–18:00; posted notice, item 3; August 3 page.

Trustee Gesky opened the item by asking the mayor how trustees should get items on the agenda, saying ⚠ "this is not a dictatorship" and ⚠ "You can't censor the the elected officials." The mayor answered that the dispute was really about the attorney, and that when trustees ask to put rehiring the former attorney on the agenda, ⚠ "I don't want to see that on the agenda," adding ⚠ "I have the right to to set the agenda." Later: ⚠ "I have been told by the our legal attorney that it is up to me to decide what's on the agenda," and ⚠ "I talked to the lawyer about it and he has reminded me it is my meeting and it's up to me what's on the agenda. If I want to avoid that issue because it's so contentious, I'm not going to put it on there."

The captions carry no speaker labels; these answers came to questions put to the mayor by name, speak in the first person about her own appointments and agenda, and the minutes attribute the position to Mayor LaMore. Asked directly how trustees place items, she said: ⚠ "Two or more Trustees can request it. So, do that in the future and I'll try and put all of them on for you," and ⚠ "I am going to put the things on the agenda that serve the public and serve the Village of Manteno." The minutes summarize: "Mayor LaMore indicated that items provided by 2 or more Trustees that serve the Village of Manteno would be approved for the Agenda. The Committee had an extensive discussion and did not reach any agreement or alignment." The word "censor" was used three times by trustees. She also said she did not want to approve items ⚠ "all focused around one employee" and objected to trustees bringing up ⚠ "one particular employee that I dismissed," without naming anyone; Trustee Gesky replied that he had not mentioned any employee.

What the law says. State law gives the board, not the president, the power to "determine its own rules of proceeding" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-40-15, applied to villages by 3.1-45-5), and nothing in the Manteno Code assigns the agenda to the president. Our August 3 page and Toolbox go through it. Trustee Gesky closed the item: ⚠ "anything you want on the agenda two or more of us will need to send an email to Stephen Orth and request that we have a special meeting."

Sources: recording, 39:00–51:30; Properties & Recreation minutes; 65 ILCS 5/3.1-40-15, 3.1-45-5.

A trustee said this after another noted that the differences between the mayor's and the posted August 3 agendas were the veto overrides and the bills. The statute: a vetoed measure "shall be reconsidered by the city council at the next regular meeting following the regular meeting at which the city council receives the mayor's written objection," and the vote to pass it over the veto "shall be by yeas and nays and shall be recorded in the journal" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-40-50, applied to villages by 3.1-45-5).

Context. The statute sets the meeting at which reconsideration happens; it does not use the word "agenda." In practice, a measure that must be reconsidered at a set meeting has to be in front of the board at that meeting. The mayor's answer, that she would leave off an item that is "so contentious," was given in the same exchange.

Sources: recording, 48:30–51:00; 65 ILCS 5/3.1-40-50, 3.1-45-5 (read November 3, 2026).

The mayor said she had ⚠ "followed protocol in trying to appoint a new lawyer, which you have refused, and after two refusals, I'm allowed to appoint," citing ⚠ "statutes from the state of Illinois allowing a mayor to make appointments." A trustee answered that the mayor may make an appointment, ⚠ "But, the words that have not been spoken enough are by the advice and consent of the board."

Both halves, against the text. The appointment statute reads: the president, "by and with the advice and consent of the... board of trustees, may appoint... an attorney or a corporation counsel" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-30-5(a)). The "two refusals" rule the mayor has cited comes from a statute about vacancies in elective office; our Fact Check grades that theory and the Vasselli appointment in full. The trustee's quotation of the consent requirement is accurate.

Sources: recording, 40:00–41:30; 65 ILCS 5/3.1-30-5 (read November 3, 2026); Legal Questions.

A trustee, whom the next speaker addressed by name (the captions render it "Mr. Budri"; Trustee Boudreau is the likely reading), said he was concerned the mayor's chosen attorney would not defend the trustees in the lawsuit, ⚠ "or you're picking a lawyer that will throw the case," and that the attorney question is ⚠ "one issue that you now sued us over." The reply: ⚠ "Mr. Budri, please let us speak. You are not running the meeting."

Where the case stood that morning. The Village sued the four trustees in July (Kankakee County No. 26CH21). Judge Lindsay Parkhurst dismissed it on July 21 because no complaint had been filed. It came back before her on August 17, five days after this meeting, and is set for argument November 12. See the lawsuit page.

Sources: recording, 41:30–42:00; lawsuit page.

Trustee Gesky asked that every vote be a roll call vote, saying the board ⚠ "couldn't even adjourn the meeting the other day because we didn't do a roll call vote." A voice, apparently the clerk's, said the call for a vote normally comes from the chair; a trustee said any member of the body can ask for a roll call. A voice answered ⚠ "Yep" when the mayor was asked to do roll calls every time. The minutes: the committee "generally agreed to move forward with Rollcall Votes." The special meeting that followed used a roll call on every motion, including adjournment.

Sources: recording, 51:30–53:00, 1:07:30–1:10:00, 1:25:00; Properties & Recreation minutes.

It was on the posted committee agenda. Trustee Gesky said: ⚠ "I think we can skip over that for now cuz we're not going to get anywhere." The minutes say he "proposed that the subject be dropped from the Agenda." Nothing about Attorney Cainkar, Vasselli Law or any negotiation was discussed under it.

Sources: recording, 53:00; committee agenda; Properties & Recreation minutes.

Called on by name, Chief Al Swinford said the police department has the system that creates key cards and turns them on and off, acting on requests, typically from Village Hall. Asked who requested that Steven Orth's card be deactivated, he gave a first name the captions render as ⚠ "Don," and the request date as June 24. He said shutting off a card when someone resigns is how it is typically done. The minutes: "a Village staff member notified him on June 24, 2026, of Mr. Orth's resignation email in June, and requested that his access be removed. Chief Swinford indicated that he did not receive a reinstatement when Mr. Orth agreed to continue in the position."

Who made the request. The minutes say only "a Village staff member." On the recording, the chair repeats the name with the surname Gesky, and a public commenter later refers to "Ms. Gesky" as the person who informs the police. Our August 3 page identifies Dawn Gesky as the Village's administrative assistant and FOIA officer, married to Trustee Gesky, who chaired this item. Name pending an audio check.

Sources: recording, 53:30–55:00, 1:15:30–1:16:30; Properties & Recreation minutes.

Trustee Gesky said that at the August 3 meeting the administrator was ⚠ "falsely accused" of controlling keys and locking out the clerk; that LaRocque told him he does not and never has had access to key codes; and that ⚠ "Mr. Larocque is owed an apology." The minutes: "Trustee Gesky requested an apology for the Village Administrator." The mayor's response on the recording was that the card stayed off ⚠ "even though he agreed to stay on and we did not have a replacement." A trustee added that concerns about an employee belong in executive session.

Context. On August 3 the mayor said the clerk's access "was deactivated... apparently purposefully locked out. Key access is typically maintained by Chris LaRocque"; we graded that Open (card a7). The chief's account supports the trustee's narrower point: the police run the system and the request came from a staff member, not from the administrator. It does not explain why the card was not turned back on when Mr. Orth stayed. The committee minutes do not list LaRocque as present; the mayor had announced on August 3 that she suspended him, which our August 3 page covers.

Sources: recording, 53:00–57:30, 49:30–50:00; Properties & Recreation minutes; August 3 page.

The chair said Mr. Orth ⚠ "has put in his resignation. He is going to be done August 28th." In the key-card discussion, the chair, Trustee Gesky, said Mr. Orth has resigned more than once and extended to help the board, and that August 14 had been an earlier end date; he said he hoped Mr. Orth would stay. The minutes: "Trustee Boudreau discussed the resignation of the current clerk."

What happened next. On August 20 the mayor's appointment of Crystal Wolfe as clerk was on the special meeting agenda, and Wolfe was appointed. See August 20.

Sources: recording, 23:00–23:30, 55:00–56:30; Planning & Zoning minutes; August 20 agenda.

The chair said the clerk is paid $4,000 and the deputy clerk $1,500, and proposed $75 for each meeting attended, by whichever of the two attends: about nine meetings a month (six committee meetings, two board meetings, one Plan Commission), for a total he gave as $8,100 a year. Another trustee noted the hour or more of minutes work after each meeting, plus licenses and permits. The mayor said: ⚠ "It sounds good to me. I think they deserve more money." The minutes put the total at "about $8000 per year" and the action as "Bring the revised Village Clerk/Deputy Clerk compensation to a Board Meeting for vote."

Checked. Manteno Code § 1-8-4 sets the clerk at "four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) per annum" and the deputy at "one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) per annum." Nine meetings times twelve months times $75 is $8,100.

Sources: recording, 23:30–27:30; Manteno Code § 1-8-4 (read November 3, 2026); Planning & Zoning minutes.

Said by a trustee: ⚠ "Deputy, we can make it apply effective immediately, but the clerk, since it's elected, it wouldn't be until the next term, whoever won the next election."

The statute. "Salaries or other compensation shall not be increased or diminished so as to take effect during the term of any officer holding an elective office. The salaries, fees, or other compensation of any appointed municipal officer, not including those appointed to fill vacancies in elective offices, may be increased but not diminished so as to take effect during the term for which the officer was appointed" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-50-5). The deputy clerk is appointed by the clerk (§ 1-8-5). A clerk appointed to fill the vacancy is covered by the bar, not the exception.

Sources: recording, 26:00–26:30; 65 ILCS 5/3.1-50-5 (read November 3, 2026); Manteno Code § 1-8-5.

A trustee said the raise had to pass before the April election so it applies to the next clerk. The deadline is actually earlier. State law says salaries fixed by ordinance for elected officers "shall be fixed at least 180 days before the beginning of the terms of the officers whose compensation is to be fixed" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-50-10). Terms begin at the first board meeting after the county clerk certifies the results, unless a local ordinance sets the date (3.1-10-15). The current mayor was sworn in April 21, 2025. If the next clerk's term starts in late April or early May 2027, 180 days before is late October or early November 2026.

Why "Open." We have not found the ordinance that sets the start of Manteno's terms, so the exact deadline is not known. We checked every board agenda posted from August 17 through November 2: none carries a clerk compensation ordinance. The October 5, October 19 and November 2 agendas list "Compensation for FOIA Officer" under the finance report, which is a different item. What would settle it: whether a clerk pay ordinance has been drafted, and the date Manteno's next terms begin.

Sources: recording, 26:00; 65 ILCS 5/3.1-50-10, 3.1-10-15 (read November 3, 2026); Village board agendas, August 17 to November 2, 2026.

The mayor: ⚠ "I have two um people that I have interviewed and we haven't made a firm decision yet and if any of you would like to meet them, contact me and I would make sure that you get to meet them before we appoint them. Because I don't like to bring things to the board at a public meeting and then have you turn it down. It's embarrassing." The minutes record the same offer.

Sources: recording, 27:00–27:30; Planning & Zoning minutes.

Trustee Gesky said the checks cover only the owner who applies, not the people working the booth, and that Clerk Orth emailed recommending the checks be suspended and the ordinance revisited. Marketing Director Ashley Peterson, called on by name, said the checks are a cost and a nuisance for vendors and that other towns do not require them, and described how her office vets applicants. Chief Swinford said a background check on the applicant cannot tell who is working the booth: ⚠ "he could hire six sex offenders to work in his booth. We're not going to know that." A voice asked ⚠ "when kids are involved who's looking out for the kids?" and the chief noted that events are patrolled.

One difference from the minutes. On the recording, Trustee Gesky proposed that the clerk and Ms. Peterson, with legal counsel, draft new guidelines. The minutes say "the Clerk and Chamber of Commerce." Both agree the action is a board vote to waive the checks.

Sources: recording, 57:30–1:07:00; Properties & Recreation minutes.

Public Works Superintendent Jim Hanley said the Village has for years dumped and burned large chipper loads at the old golf course, and the owner is closing it because people dumped trash there. Options he named: haul to a county site he said other towns use, at a cost, or limit chipper service. The committee's consensus was to keep the service as is; Mr. Hanley will get prices. The minutes match.

Sources: recording, 30:30–34:00; Properties & Recreation minutes.

Two trustees recalled the engineer's estimate differently: one said close to half a million, another $300,000 when it was scaled back; Mr. Hanley said the cost was high but he did not have the figures. The engineer was not present. It goes to the next Public Works committee. We have not seen the estimate.

Sources: recording, 28:00–29:30; Planning & Zoning minutes.

Trustee Gesky said speakers should not target employees by name, mentioning Mr. Hanley. Another voice said the public should be heard and that ⚠ "I have been personally attacked by some of the trustees during meetings." A trustee replied that trustees have been attacked ⚠ "through your letters that you read"; the answer was ⚠ "We don't read from anonymous sources," and that the speaker had written the statement. Another trustee said disagreement is not hatred and that personal attacks make him dig in. The minutes: the committee "discussed the example set by the Board and the Committees."

Sources: recording, 34:00–39:00; Properties & Recreation minutes.

The approved minutes read "Trustee Crockett opened the meeting at 7:00 a.m." The posted agenda lists Planning & Zoning under Trustee Boudreau. On the recording the chair is addressed as "CJ," and Trustee Crockett makes the motion to adjourn, which the minutes also record. The minutes' votes and attendance otherwise match the recording: minutes approved on Gesky's motion and Zimbelman's second, Barry and Vaughn absent.

Sources: Planning & Zoning minutes (approved September 9); committee agenda; recording, 4:30–5:00, 23:00, 29:30.

Mr. Kuiken (name as spelled in the minutes) said his business had been hit by the storm. He urged the board to pay the bills and the audit, said the parks upgrades have overwhelmed public works, and asked about the cost of a park restroom pavilion and a new truck. The $25 million figure matches our Audit page: about $25.3 million from the sale of the Village's sewer system to Aqua.

Context. His pavilion and truck figures were asked as questions, and no one answered them at the meeting. We have not checked them.

Sources: recording, 5:00–7:30; Planning & Zoning minutes; Audit page.

He said he watched Mr. Hanley ⚠ "flipped the switch and the doors were locked" while Trustees Barry and Vaughn were outside, that his wife could not get in, and that someone unlocked them. The chair interrupted to say speakers cannot address individuals. Mr. Hanley did not respond on the recording. The minutes record the question: "asked who locked the doors at the most recent Board meeting."

What would settle it: the building's door-control log for the evening of August 3, and the hall's video, if any. This is a different allegation from the "doors left unlocked" claim on our August 3 page.

Sources: recording, 7:30–8:30; Planning & Zoning minutes.

In order, as the chair introduced them (spellings ours where the captions differ, and pending an audio check):
Alexander Kanapka (captions' spelling), who said he is a political science student at EIU, said everything trustees ask for should go on the agenda, and called a Wednesday 8 a.m. meeting with three items strange.
Karen Brzezicki suggested the code enforcement officer check vendor booths at events, one central person for vendor vetting, a clear decision-maker for building access, and a written agenda protocol. (On October 19 she announced she will run for trustee.)
Janet Damptz asked whether the Village can afford a special meeting and asked trustees to respect the mayor.
George Reichert (captions' spelling) said trustees who set their own hours should schedule meetings Trustees Barry and Vaughn can attend, and that the board is ⚠ "you four against those two."
Bob Forsythe asked why the bills could not wait for Monday's regular meeting, and objected to the trustees' veto override, comparing it to employees overruling an employer.

On "why not Monday." The next regular meeting was Monday, August 17. Five days later, four trustees did not attend it and the board lacked a quorum; see August 17. After public comment, a board member the chair addressed as "Annette" responded to Ms. Damptz about respect; the exchange is personal, partly inaudible on the captions, and we do not reproduce it.

Sources: recording, 1:10:00–1:25:00.