After a summer of walkouts, vetoes and a lawsuit, Manteno's board had a quiet night. Forty-six minutes, six trustees, six votes, and every one of them six to nothing. The building director the board turned down in September was confirmed. The contract the mayor vetoed in September was simply voted on again, and passed. Nobody fought over anything.
The most important sentence of the night was one line in the mayor's report, about "the consideration to unionize four or five administrative type village employees." We checked it against the State's records. The Illinois Labor Relations Board certified a union for five Village of Manteno office employees on March 25, 2026. Section 2 below has the record.
This meeting follows the September 21 veto. New here? Start with the two-minute version or the Fact Check.
Graded October 8, 2026 against the meeting recording, the posted agenda, the State's labor board records, the Village's posted minutes and the Illinois Compiled Statutes. A grade is a statement about the evidence, not about anyone's honesty. Nobody named on this page is accused of any wrongdoing.
New business and the reconsideration items, roughly 42:06 to 45:31.
The roll calls, in order:
September 21 minutes: moved by Boudreau, seconded by Zimbelman, 6–0.
B&F Construction Code Services professional service agreement (new business): moved by Barry, seconded by Gesky, 6–0.
Inspection agreement with the Manteno Fire Protection District: moved by Barry, seconded by Gesky, 6–0.
Jim Paicz as Director of Building and Zoning: moved by Boudreau, seconded by Vaughn, 6–0.
Bills of $97,705.25, including $232.33 from TIF #3: moved by Barry, seconded by Boudreau, 6–0.
Adjournment: 6–0.
Trustee Crockett attended by video. That works only when a quorum is physically present, and it was: the mayor and the other five trustees were in the room. Manteno's remote-attendance rule is § 1-6-10, adopted as Ordinance 26-02 over the mayor's veto on June 15.
The bills figure is the agenda's. The captions render the spoken number as "$97,7525." The agenda prints $97,705.25. The "bills paid between board cycles" line was left blank on the agenda, and we do not publish the spoken figure for it.
Sources: meeting stream, 15:00 and 42:06–45:31; posted agenda.
The agenda carried the B&F Construction Code Services agreement twice: once as new business (item 10A), and once as a reconsideration of the vetoed September 16 approval (item 10F). Trustee Gesky asked from the dais whether they were two agreements; the answer was that they are the same one. The board passed 10A, 6–0, on a motion by Trustee Barry, who usually votes with the mayor. When 10F came up, nobody moved it. There was nothing left to override.
Why this matters. On September 23 we wrote about what could happen if the override vote were kept off the October 5 agenda. It was not kept off. The mayor's agenda listed all three reconsideration items. The board then found the shortest lawful way through: a fresh vote, at a regular meeting the mayor chaired, with her allies voting yes. A new approval of a contract can itself be vetoed, but it was not vetoed at the table, and with six votes in favor the override math is not in doubt.
The board: Put the item on a regular meeting's posted agenda and vote on it again. That is what happened.
Sources: meeting stream, 14:03–14:34, 42:06–42:34, 44:05–44:30; posted agenda items 10A and 10F.
The mayor read the reconsideration of the amended August 3 minutes and the August 17 minutes. Neither drew a motion. Earlier, in his Properties and Recreation report, Trustee Gesky said why he saw no need: minutes "are not subject to veto powers" under the Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/3.1-40-45. ⚠
That is the same reading our September 21 page reached: a village president can veto ordinances and motions that create a liability, spend money or sell property. Approving minutes does none of those things.
Where it stands. The trustees' position is that the vetoes never reached the minutes, so the September 16 approvals stand. The mayor's position is that the September 16 meeting itself was not lawful. Nobody pressed either point on October 5, so the status of those two sets of minutes is still disputed.
The board: Approve the August 17 minutes and the August 3 amendment again at a regular meeting, the same way the B&F contract was handled. A minutes approval is not vetoable, so a fresh majority vote at a meeting nobody disputes ends the argument.
Sources: meeting stream, 37:38 and 43:36–44:30; 65 ILCS 5/3.1-40-45.
On September 8 the motion to appoint him failed 2–3, with one trustee away. On September 21 the mayor named him herself. On October 5 the board gave its consent, 6–0, on a motion by Trustee Boudreau, seconded by Trustee Vaughn. (The captions render his name "Jim Pace"; the agenda spells it Paicz.)
This is the process the law describes. Under 65 ILCS 5/3.1-30-5 the president appoints officers "by and with the advice and consent" of the board. The president nominated; the board consented. The village now has a building director. It still has no village administrator and no permanent clerk.
The mayor: Nominate a village administrator and a clerk the same way. Each is one agenda line and one roll call.
Sources: meeting stream, 43:06–43:36; September 8; September 21; 65 ILCS 5/3.1-30-5.
The board tabled this agreement on September 21 because it arrived that evening. On October 5 it passed 6–0. Trustee Gesky asked two questions from the dais: whether either side can end it on 30 days' written notice (the answer was yes), and why it runs only through April 30, 2027. The answer given was that the Village wanted to get comfortable with the arrangement first and then sign a longer one. ⚠
What we do not have yet is the signed agreement and its fee terms, or anything saying which inspections now go to the Fire District, which to B&F, and which to the new building director. We have asked.
Sources: meeting stream, 38:01–38:33 and 42:34–43:06; posted agenda item 10B.
Village President's report, roughly 25:33. Not on the agenda; no trustee responded.
Mayor LaMore, reading her President's Report.
The full sentence: "In addition, the consideration to unionize four or five administrative type village employees will not be voted on until the full board is able to discern the benefits and the risks to the greater community of unionizing a few of our office staff."
What the State's record shows. The Illinois Labor Relations Board publishes every union it certifies. Its certifications for July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 include this one:
Case S-RC-26-052. Employer: Village of Manteno. Union: Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 751. Certified March 25, 2026, by "majority interest." Five employees. The unit: all non-supervisory, non-confidential and non-managerial clerical employees of the Village, including office managers, administrative assistants, treasurers, executive assistants and office assistants.
What "majority interest" means. Under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, when a majority of the employees in a unit sign up with a union, the Labor Board certifies that union as their representative (5 ILCS 315/9(a-5)). The employer's board does not vote on it. Once certified, the employer must bargain with the union in good faith (5 ILCS 315/7). What comes to the village board after that is a contract, approved the way Manteno already approves its police and public works union contracts.
Why it is graded Mixed. The "four or five" is right: the State's record says five. But the sentence describes unionizing as a decision still ahead of the board. That decision was made by the employees and certified by the State six months before she said it. And the bargaining is already well along (card o8): what is actually waiting for a vote is a negotiated first contract.
The Village: Bring the negotiated contract to the board as a resolution, on a posted agenda, the way the Fraternal Order of Police and Operating Engineers contracts were approved in April 2025. Contract strategy can be discussed in closed session (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(2)); the final vote has to be in open session.
If the Village thinks a position should not be in the unit: the route is a unit-clarification petition to the Labor Board, not a board vote.
Sources: meeting stream, 25:33–26:12; Illinois Labor Relations Board, Certifications of Representation, July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026 (case S-RC-26-052); 5 ILCS 315/7 and 9(a-5).
The engagement letter Joseph Cainkar sent the Village on June 30, 2026, filed as Exhibit B to the Village's July 10 lawsuit against four trustees, listed "pending LIUNA Local 751 labor matters" among the work his firm would handle. We had not been able to say what those were. The State's record now shows a Local 751 unit at the Village certified three months earlier.
Context. The letter does not describe the matters, so we say the two are consistent, not that they are the same thing. The certification also came in March, before the June fight over the village attorney began, so it is not part of that dispute.
Sources: Village TRO motion, Exhibit B; ILRB case S-RC-26-052.
From the Village's own September 21 meetings. The posted board agenda listed "Collective Bargaining Agreement with LIUNA" for discussion in the President's Report. At the 5:00 p.m. committee meeting that day, someone at the table asked to go into executive session "to talk about the agreed upon contract" for village staff, and the committee voted to close the meeting. ⚠ At the 6:00 p.m. board meeting the mayor said, "We did speak about unionization in our executive board meeting tonight," and asked "Mike" (Trustee Barry) for a synopsis. The synopsis given: the board had questions to get answered and "should have something to look at" before the next board meeting. ⚠
Then October 5. The next board meeting was October 5. No contract was on the agenda. The mayor said instead that the "consideration to unionize" would not be voted on until the full board can weigh the benefits and risks.
Context. Discussing a contract in closed session is lawful (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(2)); the citation has to be stated at the vote and entered in the minutes, and we are waiting for those minutes. We do not know what the open questions are, and nothing on the record says the Village has stopped bargaining. Two other notes from the State's records: the Fraternal Order of Police was certified for Manteno's four police sergeants on November 12, 2024 (case S-RC-25-016), and the clerical unit's description includes "treasurers." Whether that title is a staff position or the Village Treasurer's office, we have asked rather than guessed.
Sources: board agenda, September 21, 2026; Manteno Village View recordings of the September 21 committee meeting (57:25–59:26) and board meeting (49:13, 57:03); ILRB FY25 certifications (S-RC-25-016); 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(2) and 2a.
Roughly 23:02 to 25:33.
She said that the week before, she questioned a middle school teacher whose sixth graders, in neon vests, were off school grounds during the school day. They were cleaning up a village park after Oktoberfest as a leadership activity.
In her words: "I questioned the teacher in an accusational way. My questions and attitude made the teacher uncomfortable and she left the park with the students thereafter. I was wrong and I regret how I handled a situation that didn't need my handling." She said she had apologized to the teacher and the students, and added: "amidst all of the accusations I have endured as mayor, this is something I can actually fully own. I apologize to every citizen."
We are not naming the teacher or anyone else involved. They are private people. This card is the mayor's own account and her apology, which she said she had also given to the media; we have not yet found that earlier statement.
Source: meeting stream, 23:02–24:35.
The mayor said the Village is going through applications for staff openings. On September 9 she had said, "As village president, I will be making appointments," and that she did not plan to hire an administrator before April's election.
Context. October 5's wording describes the process the law sets out: appointed officers through the president with the board's consent, other employees hired. The building director's confirmation the same night is an example of it. Trustee Boudreau, in his own report, suggested an interim administrator "until we hire one fully." The mayor herself floated an interim on September 9.
Sources: meeting stream, 25:33 and 29:06–29:30; September 9.
Trustee reports, roughly 26:12 to 37:38.
Trustee Gesky, in his Properties and Recreation report: at the prior meeting he asked what authority allowed the temporary appointment of Allen Pickrel as clerk, and the attorney at the table cited section 1-5-5 of the village code. Gesky said that section covers appointed positions, that the clerk is elected, and that filling the office "does require appointment by the mayor and approval by the board." He asked that Pickrel be appointed that way "so this way he could legally do his job and be compensated accordingly." ⚠ Nobody responded, and there was no agenda item.
We reached the same conclusion on September 21. Manteno's clerk is elected, and a vacancy is filled by the president with the board's consent. The October 5 agenda still printed "Village Clerk: Steven Orth" on its cover, though he left in August, and the line for the clerk who posted it was blank. Gesky pointed out the Orth error at the start of the meeting.
The mayor: Put the clerk on the next agenda as a nomination, Pickrel or anyone else. One roll call.
Sources: meeting stream, 13:34 and 36:07–37:01; posted agenda, cover page.
Trustee Barry put "Compensation for FOIA Officer" on the agenda as new business for discussion at the Finance committee on October 19. He said many towns have each department gather its own records, with one FOIA officer coordinating, while Manteno has always had one person in village hall do all of it. He floated a "dual role" position among the new hires. ⚠
Disclosure. The Bourbs files many of the public records requests Manteno receives. You should weigh this card with that in mind.
What the law allows. Any employee can be designated a FOIA officer, and a public body can have several. Each must complete the Attorney General's annual training (5 ILCS 140/3.5). No new position is required to spread the work.
The Village: Designate a FOIA officer in each department, and post the records people ask for most often (minutes, agendas, contracts, bills) on the website, which removes them from the request pile.
Sources: meeting stream, 26:12–27:32; posted agenda, Finance new business; 5 ILCS 140/3.5.
Three speakers, 15:32 to 22:33.
Mara Kopka opened by correcting her own earlier statements: the cameras "have not been here for a few weeks but rather since 2020," and there are "not 10 but eight cameras in town." She said she is a full-time college student working two jobs and has been reading committee records back to 2019.
That matches what the police chief said on September 9 ("we've had it for years") and what the Village's 2020 minutes show (card o14). We have added a dated note to our September 8 card.
Source: meeting stream, 16:00–16:32.
She quoted the chief from a February 12, 2020 meeting. We pulled it. The Village's own minutes of the Public Safety committee of the whole for Wednesday, February 12, 2020 record a "Flock LPR demo." The chief said two demonstration cameras were in the village, ran a demonstration of the software, and the minutes say searches "can be completed on vehicle make or color, person on bicycle, trucks, and animals." He wanted to "try this type of camera for 1 year."
Context. Her next sentence, that state police and other officers "can look at your kids on their bikes for hours," is her own characterization, not something in the minutes. What our FOIA 26-163 records do show is that Manteno's data is shared through Flock's statewide and nationwide networks with hundreds of agencies.
Sources: meeting stream, 17:01–17:34; Public Safety committee minutes, February 12, 2020; FOIA 26-163 production.
The $2,000 is right for 2020: the same February 12, 2020 minutes say "The cost is $2,000 per year per camera."
The $6,000 is a different thing. The minutes say: "The upgrade to our current cameras would be $6000 per camera." That was the price of upgrading the license plate cameras the Village already owned, as an alternative, and it does not say "per year." The month before, on January 8, 2020, the same committee's minutes record a vendor quote of "$6,000 per camera" for four cameras to replace the regular cameras the Village was running plate-reading software on. So her yearly range of $16,000 to $48,000 for eight cameras rests on a misreading.
What the Village pays Flock today is not in these minutes. We are working from the invoices in our FOIA 26-163 records and will publish the current figure when it is confirmed. Note also that the Village's January 2021 minutes describe two systems: two leased portable Flock cameras, and a separate, permanent four-camera plate reader system on the I-57 overpass. A count of cameras around town may include both.
Sources: meeting stream, 17:34–18:09; minutes, February 12, 2020; minutes, January 8, 2020; minutes, January 13, 2021.
We searched the roughly 350 agendas and minutes the Village has posted for 2020 and 2021, including the scanned ones. The leased Flock cameras appear only in committee-of-the-whole minutes, mostly Public Safety: the February 12, 2020 demonstration; September 9, 2020 ("a leasing option with the Flock cameras," and then-Mayor Nugent saying the cameras have "proven to solve crimes"); December 9, 2020 (Flock cameras used to recover four stolen vehicles in three months); January 13, 2021 ("two leased portable LPR cameras known as Flock"); and November 9, 2021, where the chief said data "can be shared with all participating agencies" and "the village has 2 Flock cameras."
The board did vote on plate readers once in those two years, and it was not Flock. On March 1, 2021, on its consent agenda, it approved 6–0 the purchase of a fixed plate reader camera system for the I-57 interchange from Minuteman Security Technologies of Tinley Park, for $27,815.29.
What that does and does not show. A committee of the whole talks; it does not take final action. So the posted record contains no board vote on Flock. It does not prove no money was approved: a small lease can be paid through the bills with no agenda item of its own. The bills are the next thing we are checking. Note also that "two Flock cameras" in 2021 and the "eight cameras" the speaker counted now may include the separate I-57 system.
The board: Bring the Flock agreement and Policy 434 to a board meeting for a vote, the way it voted on the I-57 cameras in 2021, and adopt rules on retention, sharing and audits by ordinance.
Sources: Village meetings index, 2020 and 2021 (searched October 8, 2026); minutes of September 9, 2020, December 9, 2020, January 13, 2021 and November 9, 2021; board minutes, March 1, 2021.
She cited the FBI's Crime Data Explorer, and asked what the cameras are for "if there's no crime for Flock to catch."
We have not checked these figures yet. Two cautions for anyone weighing them. Federal crime data for small agencies has gaps in some years, because reporting moved to a new system. And plate readers are mostly used to find stolen cars and wanted vehicles passing through, which a town's own crime counts would not capture. Low local numbers can cut either way.
Source: meeting stream, 16:32–17:01.
The second speaker congratulated the middle school softball team, which includes her nieces. On the cameras she said she is "not exactly a complete fan," but described someone armed with a gun trying to break into her vehicle, and said if the cameras keep that person away, "then yes, I'm all for it."
We are not naming her, because she described being the victim of a crime. Her view is part of the record and we include it for balance.
Source: meeting stream, 18:33–19:00.
The third speaker said he has practiced law for 30 years and described himself as a former Village employee and appointee. He objected that at the last meeting employees were criticized "on TV in open meetings," and said the board has "more than enough attorneys" in the room to advise it on what belongs in closed session. On the cameras he gave a defense lawyer's view: a misdemeanor file that once ran five pages now runs 40 pages and ten and a half hours of video, which sometimes helps and sometimes repeats. "I see the good and the bad."
Context on the law. The Open Meetings Act allows a board to close a meeting to discuss a specific employee (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1)). It does not require it. So this is a criticism of judgment and of how staff are treated in public, not a claim that the law was broken. We are not naming him until we can confirm the spelling of his name and the role he held.
Source: meeting stream, 19:33–22:33; 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1).
Committee reports, 27:32 to 42:06.
Trustee Boudreau, Planning and Zoning: the Village received an email that day from 319 Industrial Park LLC "about extending their TIF zone." It goes to the Planning and Zoning committee on Wednesday, October 14, at 7 a.m.
What we do not know: which TIF district, which property, and whether "extending" means more time or more territory. Those are very different. Adding territory to a TIF district requires notice and a public hearing. Extending how long a district lasts generally requires an act of the state legislature. We have requested the email and the development agreement.
Source: meeting stream, 28:02.
Clean Energy Design Group, Inc. is on the Plan Commission agenda for Tuesday, October 13, at 6 p.m., to present information about battery energy storage systems, for a "Discussion of Zoning for Battery Energy Storage Systems." Trustee Boudreau said the site being looked at is on Career Center Road. It is a presentation, not a public hearing. This is the same item that was on the September 9 Plan Commission agenda when that meeting was cancelled.
Sources: meeting stream, 28:31; Plan Commission agenda, October 13.
Trustee Boudreau said the auditor's completion date is October 31, and that Treasurer Martin had told the board some things are still missing.
The state deadline. The Illinois Municipal Code requires the audit to be completed and the report submitted within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, unless the Comptroller grants an extension in writing (65 ILCS 5/8-8-3). Manteno's fiscal year ends April 30, so 180 days is October 27. We will check whether the report is filed or an extension is granted.
Sources: meeting stream, 28:31–29:06; 65 ILCS 5/8-8-3.
Ashley Peterson, who ran the festival for the first time this year, gave figures from the location-data company Placer.ai: about 30,300 visits by about 21,600 individual visitors over four days, an average stay of 143 minutes, and about 59 percent of visits from outside the Manteno ZIP code. Police Chief Swinford said there was one arrest all weekend.
Context. These are cellphone-location estimates, not ticket counts.
Source: meeting stream, 29:30–31:03 and 33:31.
Officer Connor McCormick: Canadian National Railway closed the Adams Street crossing, by St. Joseph Church, starting October 5. Use the Division Street or Third Street crossings, and never go around a barricade or a lowered gate.
Source: meeting stream, 32:01–33:04.
The agenda listed the Finance and Public Safety committees for "Monday 10/21/26." October 21 is a Wednesday; the trustees said Monday, October 19, at 5 p.m. It listed Public Works for "Tues. 10/22/26." October 22 is a Thursday; Trustee Crockett said Tuesday, October 20, at 7 a.m. The other dates were right: Plan Commission October 13, Planning and Zoning and Properties and Recreation October 14 at 7 a.m., General Government October 27 at 7 a.m.
Check the Village's posted notice before you go. The meeting is the one in the notice posted 48 hours ahead.
Sources: posted agenda; meeting stream, 13:34, 27:32, 33:31, 34:06, 42:06.
Drafted this week.
On the union: from the Illinois Labor Relations Board, its file in case S-RC-26-052. From the Village, its filings in that case, its correspondence with Local 751 since January, who bargains for the Village, and the agreement discussed on September 21.
On the contracts approved October 5: the signed B&F agreement and Fire District inspection agreement, how inspections are divided among B&F, the Fire District and the building director, and B&F's work and invoices for the Gotion plant, which it also inspects.
On the TIF request: the 319 Industrial Park LLC email, the development agreement, and the committee packet for October 14.
On the record itself: the September 21 minutes, approved October 5, which must be posted on the Village website within ten days (5 ILCS 120/2.06(b)), by October 15.
If you were in the room, or hold any of these documents, the form below reaches us directly.
If a verdict here is wrong, if we have put a quote in the wrong mouth, or if you hold any document referenced at this meeting, we want to see it. Name and email are optional.