When we decided to write a story about a city department head blocking a citizen from a city council meeting and then mocking and disparaging her in front of others at City Hall, I knew Mayor Kent Williams and at least a few others wouldn’t be happy about it. What I didn’t expect is to see Williams throw a temper tantrum at last week’s Evanston City Council meeting — all the while, completely disrespecting the victim again — publicly.
“It sickens me,” he exclaimed, before slamming the gavel and abruptly ending the meeting.
Williams was irate that the Herald reported on an unfortunate incident involving Evanston Community Development Director Rocco O’Neill, who was unprofessional and inappropriate when speaking about fifth-generation Evanstonian Gina Sundquist — after he thought he’d hung up his office phone at City Hall.
While still recording the voicemail, however, O’Neill ironically praised a former boss who used to curse at those in need before hanging up on them.
O’Neill’s blunder was so bad — and the way he and Williams have handled it even worse — that two longtime residents who have so graciously volunteered for the city for many years resigned over it.
We’ll see if that keeps her off the agenda
The most frustrating thing about this mess is that Williams and O’Neill are both missing the point — by a country mile. The bigger issue at hand — bigger than dropping F-bombs at City Hall and bigger than mocking a citizen who expressed a valid concern — is that the city has been gatekeeping, trying (and succeeding at times, it appears) to keep citizens off of city council agendas and thereby out of public meetings.
“Yeah, you bet. We’ll see if that keeps her off the work session (agenda),” was the first thing O’Neill said after he thought he had hung up the phone.
Does that sound like someone who is working for the people of Evanston?
Why it’s news
Let’s talk some numbers. The one single complaint I’ve received about our July 31 story was from a future relative of O’Neill’s who said it was a “hit piece” because O’Neill isn’t an elected official. That doesn’t matter one bit in this situation. We’re not talking about some kid mowing lawns for the city who complains about residents not picking up after their dogs. This is a department head at City Hall — a supposed professional in a leadership role.
In fact, do you know how much of your taxpayer dollars O’Neill is paid annually? Does that matter? I think it does.
What if I told you he rakes in $86,314.33 per year, all while completely disrespecting Evanston citizens. Gross.
How about the mayor? We are paying him $30,000 — again, all taxpayer money — each year for part-time work. That, of course, is in addition to his day job of county planner, where we again foot the bill for his personal income — an additional annual salary of $62,567. (In a super fun coincidence, you can see all county employee salaries in this very edition; they’re required to publish it each year).
Don’t get me wrong… I’m happy as can be that we’re able to use taxpayer money to hire good, hardworking community members. To be honest, I think most are underpaid. I’m grateful for what they do to better our community. However, I do not think they have the right to badmouth citizens, and I would suggest that we only have a couple of bad apples who do.
Both O’Neill and Williams argued that this scandal wasn’t newsworthy, but with Sundquist addressing the council last week, it was inevitable that what both men wanted to keep secret would become public.
Actually, it shouldn’t have been news
Sundquist came to us because the city tried to shut her up — plain and simple. Multiple city officials failed her. What is a newspaper’s job if it isn’t to stand up for and protect citizens who are hurt by local government? We did our job, and we did it very well.
Certainly, as Williams said, people make mistakes — me, you, everyone. And I’m a big believer in first, second, third — even fourth chances in most cases.
But neither of these public servants even owned up to their initial behavior. They both made matters much worse by continuing to disrespect citizens and the local media.
O’Neill chose to lie to the Herald during an interview. He probably views it as a noble act … the fact that he didn’t identify anyone else involved in this grotesque incident; however, a lie is a lie is a lie. And lies are worse coming from the government — they just are. And when you lie to the media, you are lying to citizens.
Williams chose to throw a fit in public. We can’t not cover that when it happens in a city council meeting and the entire room is shocked and/or embarrassed for the man. He didn’t even adjourn the meeting properly because he was so unhinged. (Council meetings — from my experience — usually require a motion and vote for proper adjournment. Williams, in a huff, simply slammed his little gavel and ruled that sufficient.) That, my friends, is absolutely news.
An old mentor of mine defined news as “that which is extraordinary.” Believe me, I was there — Williams’ behavior was extraordinary (very unusual or remarkable).
A selfishly-squandered opportunity
Mayor Williams had an opportunity to do the right thing — to apologize to Sundquist! — at last week’s meeting. He failed to even come close. Here’s what I would have liked to hear from our mayor:
“Ms. Sundquist, on behalf of me, the council and the city of Evanston, please accept our apology for how you were mistreated by a city department head. I’m sorry others found it appropriate to laugh during the incident and those actions do not represent us or the city of Evanston. We will do better. We understand that we are public servants, paid by taxpayer dollars, and that we, ultimately, work for the citizens of this great city. It’s wrong to discourage citizens from public participation, and we will end that practice immediately.”
(I can imagine Williams rolling his eyes right now, because, to his credit, he does often say during meetings that he appreciates public participation… but his actions say otherwise.)
I think it would also be appropriate to do something official on top of an actual, appropriate and sincere apology — maybe a resolution that all city employees, from the top down, acknowledge that they are there to serve the citizens, who deserve all workers’ utmost respect.
That is what Sundquist and all of us residents and taxpayers deserve.
Classic deflection
Sundquist certainly deserved more than what Williams spewed at the meeting, as he avoided apologizing and quickly shifted focus from the real problem — trying to keep citizens quiet and out of public meetings — to attacking the local media. That’s a fascist tactic, by the way. Fascists like to control what information citizens can or cannot access.
Williams’ behavior was classic deflection: throw a pile of turds over there, and they’ll be so shocked or upset that they’ll forget about this pile of turds you previously splattered right here. Thankfully, his attempt to distract was much more transparent than he wants to be about certain things.
Sundquist and her family were “furious” over Williams’ response, and they have every right to be.
Instead of publicly picking a bone with me or someone else he disagrees with — like he’s done before — Williams should have actually addressed Sundquist and her concerns. Instead, the mayor selfishly tried to make the entire situation about him.
“Not to be arrogant,” he said during Tuesday’s meeting, before saying he was the one and only person apparently in the entire multiverse who could have done something about the situation. Then why didn’t he do something about it? Why hasn’t he still?
He made it all about him and how he feels about the local newspaper. And he couldn’t have been more dismissive of Sundquist and her family — and even the city council members — after losing his cool and ending the meeting improperly and unprofessionally. It was his party, and he was going to cry if he wanted to.
Stay humble
On top of a real apology, the mayor and O’Neill both owe Sundquist truckloads of respect. They owe that to every single citizen — even me. We literally pay their salaries. They work for us, and they seem to have forgotten that. This should have been a humbling experience for both of them. Let us all hope this serves as a reminder.
But Williams has passed on previous opportunities to respond with humility. Months ago, his clandestine operation to help tear down the old Wyoming State Hospital buildings was exposed. He’d gone behind the council’s — and the entire city’s — back and wrote a letter to legislators saying we, as a city, don’t want to see the old Wyoming State Hospital buildings saved. This was after the council had already voted to approve contacting the state concerning its desire to save the buildings.
When it came out during a council meeting, did he apologize for his sneaky ways? Nope. He should be absolutely ashamed for using his office, that we provide him, in such a deceitful way.
Let’s not forget that, years ago, Williams ran off the entire planning and zoning commission after he lost his temper and fired Paul Knopf, who sued the city over it and, in the end, was awarded half a million dollars. Longstanding boards in our community cut ties with the city over it, too.
Is that what working for the citizens of Evanston should look like? How many more bridges will the city burn because of its mayor?
Point is O’Neill and/or Williams were not only incredibly disrespectful, they failed to do their jobs in the first place.
I can’t say it clearer than this: Williams’ and O’Neill’s response to this scandal is far more important and newsworthy than the voicemail itself, and citizens should absolutely be concerned about this city’s leadership.
Given that fact, and the pathetic response Sundquist received, perhaps Evanston resident Judy Jones is right (see her letter on page A3), though I’d shift focus from O’Neill and direct this more at the mayor. Jones writes, “Maybe it would be better for him and the people of Evanston if he found a job that didn’t include working with the public.”
Amen, Judy.
(Correction: In the original version of this column, I said council meetings are required to have a motion and vote to adjourn. That is not the case, and the coulumn has been updated to reflect that.)
