Sunteți pe pagina 1din 39

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 9/4/2019 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM


Courtroom Number: 2008
Location: District 1 Court FILED
Cook County, IL 7/3/2019 1:22 PM
Attorney Code 46996 DOROTHY BROWN
CIRCUIT CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

2019CH05714
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
5648056
DEVON REID, in his official )
capacity as Clerk of the City )
of Evanston )
)
Plaintiff, )
) 2019 CH 05714
v. )
)
CITY OF EVANSTON, et al. )
)
Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ § 2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS


PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants City of Evanston (“City”), Michelle Masoncup (“Masoncup”), and Wally

Bobkiewicz (“Bobkiewicz”) (collectively “Defendants”), by their attorneys, City of Evanston

Law Department, respectfully move this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

pursuant to Section 2-619.1 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure and, in support thereof,

hereby state as follows:

Introduction

Plaintiff asks this Court to order the City of Evanston to disclose attorney-client

privileged communications and officer worn body camera footage to Plaintiff in his capacity as a

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) officer. See Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for

Declaratory Judgment (“Compl.”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, at ¶¶ 15, 22-

23, 27-28. Plaintiff further asks this Court to invalidate a Resolution passed by the City Council

as a Special Order of Business. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 33. Plaintiff, however, lacks standing to pursue these

claims. Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has standing, this Court lacks jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz should be dismissed because they are
not the real parties in interest in this matter. Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees

fails because Illinois law requires each party to be responsible for its own attorneys’ fees.
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Finally, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is substantially insufficient in law because the legal

effect of his complaint as it is pled, is that the City is suing itself. Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint should, therefore, be dismissed in its entirety.

Factual Background

Plaintiff is the City Clerk of the City of Evanston. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶ 1. On October 23,

2017, City Council adopted Resolution 84-R-17 appointing Plaintiff to be the FOIA Officer for
1
the City. See Resolution 84-5-17, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; see also

Compl., Ex. A., at ¶ 1. The City’s Police Department is outfitted with officer-worn body cameras

per the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, 50 ILCS 706/10. The City receives

and complies with FOIA requests for body-worn camera footage. Id. at ¶ 8, 10. Plaintiff has

requested copies of that video footage for his record retention as a FOIA officer. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 22.

The City also receives and complies with FOIA requests for documents containing attorney-

client communications. Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff has requested unredacted and unrestricted access to

all attorney-client communications. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 27. Plaintiff’s lawsuit does not bear on the

City’s compliance with specific FOIA requests. Rather, Plaintiff claims that the City generally is

in violation of FOIA by not granting his requests for copies of body-worn camera footage and

unredacted attorney-client communications produced in response to FOIA requests. Id. at ¶¶ 11,

21, 26. In making this claim, Plaintiff asks this Court to declare that the City provide him with

1
Courts are permitted to take judicial notice of facts contained in public records where such notice will
aid in the efficient disposition of the case. Wright v. Pucinski, 352 Ill. App. 3d 769, 773, 816 N.E.2d 808,
813 (1st Dist. 2004) (citing Village of Riverwoods v. BG Ltd. Partnership, 276 Ill.App.3d 720, 724, 658
N.E.2d 1261 (1995)).

2
copies of body-worn camera footage and unredacted attorney-client communications produced in

response to FOIA requests. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 28.


FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Plaintiff also asks this Court to declare invalid Resolution 57-R-19, which was passed by

the City Council on May 28, 2019. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 32. Resolution 57-R-19 adopted a FOIA policy

wherein multiple individuals were designated as additional FOIA officers. Id. at ¶ 16. Among the

newly designated FOIA officers are Plaintiff and individuals within the Police Department and

the Law Department. Id. Resolution 57-R-19 was placed on the City Council agenda as a Special

Order of Business. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶ 17.

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on July 1, 2019. Id. Defendants seek the

dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Legal Standard

Section 2-619.1 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure allows combined motions to

dismiss under Sections 2-615 and 2-619. 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1. Section 2-619 provides for

involuntary dismissal of claims based upon certain defects or defenses. Edelman v. Hinshaw &

Culbertson, 338 Ill. App. 3d 156, 164, 788 N.E.2d 740, 748 (1st Dist. 2003). Section 2-619(a)(1)

provides for involuntary dismissal where the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of

the action. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1). Lack of standing is properly challenged pursuant to § 2-

619(a)(9), as it completely defeats a plaintiff’s ability to successfully prosecute its claim against

the defendants. Mareskas-Palcek v. Schwartz, Wolf & Bernstein, LLP, 2017 IL App (1st)

162746, ¶ 29, 90 N.E.3d 463, 470 (1st Dist. 2017); McCready v. Illinois Sec'y of State, White,

382 Ill. App. 3d 789, 794–95, 888 N.E.2d 702, 707 (2008). When ruling on a Section 2-619

motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the Complaint as true and draw

3
all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the non-moving party. Edelman, 338 Ill.

App. 3d at 164, 788 N.E.2d at 747.


FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

A Section 2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint or

portions thereof. Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corp., 2018 IL 120951, ¶ 23, 104 N.E.3d

1110, 1119 (2018). In ruling on a section 2-615 motion, a court must accept as true the

complaint’s well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may arise from them. Cochran

v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 2017 IL 121200, ¶ 11, 93 N.E.3d 493, 497 (2017). The

main inquiry is whether the allegations, when construed in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, sufficiently state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Bogenberger, 2018

IL 120951, ¶ 23, 104 N.E.3d at 1119.

Argument

I. Defendants are entitled to dismissal of Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First


Amended Complaint under § 2-619(a)(9) because Plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue those claims.

“The standing doctrine seeks to ensure that issues are raised only by those parties with a

real interest in the outcome of the controversy.” Sierra Club v. Office of Mines and Minerals of

Dept. of Natural Resources, 2015 IL App (4th) 140405, ¶ 22, 29 N.E.3d 1068, 1073-74 (4th Dist.

2015). “Where a plaintiff lacks standing, the proceedings must be dismissed because of the lack

of standing negates the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit in his official capacity as the City Clerk. See Compl., Ex. A.

“In order to have standing to maintain a declaratory judgment action, the party seeking the

declaration must be interested in the controversy and must possess a personal claim, status or

right which is capable of being affected.” McCready, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 796, 888 N.E.2d at 708

(emphasis added). In other words, “[t]o have standing, one must have sustained, or be in

4
immediate danger of sustaining, a direct injury.” Sharma v. Zollar, 265 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1027,

638 N.E.2d 736, 740 (1st Dist. 1994). In proceeding in his official capacity, however, Plaintiff
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

highlights that he does not have the requisite standing to pursue the claims he has alleged. First,

Plaintiff does not possess a personal claim, status or right which is capable of being affected. He

admits as much by proceeding in his official capacity. Second, Plaintiff has not and cannot

identify any direct injury. In fact, his Complaint is entirely devoid of any allegation of injury or

potential for injury whatsoever. Because Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this declaratory

judgment action, his First Amended Complaint should be dismissed.

Plaintiff’s standing is further diminished by the nature of the claims he seeks to pursue.

According to Plaintiff, the City is violating Illinois’ FOIA by not providing him copies of

responsive documents released by the City pursuant to FOIA. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 8, 10-13, 22,

27. Plaintiff also claims that, in doing so, the City is circumventing FOIA’s requirements. Id. at ¶

11. In other words, Plaintiff alleges that the City is executing its powers in contravention of

Illinois law. In order to bring said action against the City, however, Plaintiff must do so by quo

warranto. “Quo warranto is a legal action whereby the legality of an exercise of powers by a

municipal corporation may be placed in issue.” People ex rel. City of Des Plaines v. Vill. of

Mount Prospect, 29 Ill. App. 3d 807, 811, 331 N.E.2d 373, 377 (1st Dist. 1975).

Quo warranto proceedings are governed by the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure

(“Code”). 735 ILCS 5/18-101 et seq. Included within the Code is an explanation of how quo

warranto proceedings may be instituted as well as by whom. 735 ILCS 5/18-102, 18-103.

“[W]here a case involves matters of purely public interest, only the [Attorney General] or the

[State’s Attorney] ‘as representatives of the people, have standing to institute quo warranto

proceedings.’” People ex rel. Wofford v. Brown, 2017 IL App (1st) 161118, ¶ 13, 76 N.E.3d 34,

5
38 (1st Dist. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Miller, 228 Ill. App. 3d 260, 266, 592 N.E.2d 570 (1st

Dist. 1992)). Plaintiff’s lawsuit does not bear on the City’s compliance with specific FOIA
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

requests. Rather, Plaintiff claims that the City is generally violating FOIA by not granting his

requests for copies of body-worn camera footage and unredacted attorney-client communications

produced in response to FOIA requests. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 21, 26. The legality of the City’s exercise of

its powers and authority in developing and executing policies under FOIA is a matter of purely

public interest. As such, Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the claims set forth in Counts

I and II of his First Amended Complaint.

There are circumstances where an individual can pursue quo warranto proceedings.

Plaintiff, however, fails to meet those conditions. Section 18-102 of the Code provides, in

pertinent part, as follows:

The [quo warranto] proceeding shall be brought…by any citizen having an


interest in the question on his or her own relation, when he or she has requested
the Attorney General and State’s Attorney bring the same, and the Attorney
General and the State’s Attorney have refused or failed to do so, and when, after
notice to the Attorney General and State’s Attorney, and to the adverse party, of
the intended application, leave has been granted by the circuit court.

735 ILCS 5/18-102. Plaintiff, however, fails to establish that he has met any of these

requirements. Plaintiff does not allege to have requested this suit be brought by the Attorney

General’s Office or the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office nor does he allege that those

offices declined to bring suit. Plaintiff also does not allege he had prior leave of court to file his

lawsuit against Defendants. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements

necessary to pursue an action quo warranto, he lacks standing to pursue the claims set forth in

Counts I and II of his First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a declaratory judgment action against Defendants

because he does not possess a personal claim, status or right which is capable of being affected

6
and he cannot identify any direct injury. As a result, his First Amended Complaint should be

dismissed in its entirety. Alternatively, Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

should be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims attacking the legality of the

City’s exercise of its powers.

II. Defendants are entitled to dismissal of Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First


Amended Complaint under § 2-619(a)(9) because the claims set forth therein
are moot.

At the time he filed his amended complaint, Plaintiff was no longer the sole FOIA officer

for the City. See Compl., Ex. A, at ¶ 16. Rather, the City presently has multiple FOIA officers,

including Plaintiff and individuals within the Police Department and the Law Department. Id.;

see also City of Evanston Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (“City Council Minutes”), a

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, at 5;2 see also May 28, 2019 Evanston City

Council meeting (“City Council Meeting Video”), referred to herein as Exhibit D and accessible

online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9aXCDU7ifU&feature=youtu.be, at 2:08:58,

2:09:38. As a result, no actual controversy remains between the parties thereby rendering Counts

I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint moot—a point Plaintiff acknowledges. See City

Council Meeting Video, Ex. D, at 40:13. Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

should, therefore, be dismissed.

A successful action for declaratory relief requires the following: “(1) a plaintiff with a

legal tangible interest; (2) a defendant having an opposing interest; and (3) an actual controversy

between the parties concerning such interests.” Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 372, 789

2
Courts are permitted to take judicial notice of facts contained in public records where such notice will
aid in the efficient disposition of the case. Wright v. Pucinski, 352 Ill. App. 3d 769, 773, 816 N.E.2d 808,
813 (1st Dist. 2004) (citing Village of Riverwoods v. BG Ltd. Partnership, 276 Ill.App.3d 720, 724, 658
N.E.2d 1261 (1995)).

7
N.E.2d 1216, 789 N.E.2d 1216, 1223 (2003); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-701. “Although a

declaratory judgment action is proper to determine the parties’ existing rights, the court may
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

dismiss such an action where the party seeks to enforce his rights after the fact.” BMO Harris

Bank, N.A. v. Jackson Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 170781, ¶ 24, 108 N.E.3d

266, 271 (1st Dist. 2018) (citing Karimi v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC, 2011 IL App (1st)

102670, ¶ 10, 952 N.E.2d 1278 (1st Dist. 2011)).

Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment complaint seek only a declaration that

the City provide Plaintiff, in his capacity as a FOIA officer, all body camera footage and

unredacted attorney-client communications subject to FOIA. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 23, 28. Those

claims, however, are moot. “An issue is considered moot where events occur which make it

impossible for the court to grant effectual relief.” Sharma, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 1027, 638 N.E.2d

at 740. Here, the City Council adopted a FOIA policy designating multiple FOIA officers in

addition to Plaintiff. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶ 16. As a result, there is not an actual controversy

between the parties capable of judicial determination. It is well established that a “claim must

contain an actual controversy capable of judicial determination.” Byer Clinic & Chiropractic,

Ltd. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 113038, ¶ 17, 988 N.E.2d 670, 675

(1st Dist. 2013). In this context, “actual controversy” means that “the underlying facts and issues

of the case are not moot or premature, so as to require the court to pass judgment on mere

abstract propositions of law, render an advisory opinion, or give legal advice as to future events.”

Beahringer, 204 Ill. 2d at 374-75, 789 N.E.2d at 1224 (emphasis and internal quotation marks

omitted.)

“When it becomes apparent that an opinion cannot affect the results as to the parties or

the controversy before it, the court should not resolve the question merely for the sake of setting

8
a precedent or to govern potential future cases.” Sharma, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 1027, 638 N.E.2d at

740. “The purpose of the declaratory judgment action is to give guidance for future conduct, not
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

to provide relief related to past conduct.” BMO Harris Bank, 2018 IL App (1st) 170781, ¶ 26,

108 N.E.3d at 271–72. In Counts I and II of his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks only a declaration that

the City provide him, in his capacity as a FOIA officer, all body camera footage and unredacted

attorney-client communications subject to FOIA, which he claims is necessary for him to keep a

copy of the City’s FOIA response. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 23, 28. However, as he alleges in his

Complaint, Plaintiff is not the City’s sole FOIA officer. Id. at ¶ 16. In addition to Plaintiff, the

City now also has FOIA officers within the Police Department and the Law Department. Id.

Plaintiff, therefore, can no longer claim it is necessary for the City to provide him copies of the

materials he requests. In other words, based on the facts as alleged by Plaintiff, any opinion from

this Court cannot affect the results as to the parties or the alleged controversy before it. Counts I

and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should, therefore, be dismissed.

III. Defendants are entitled to dismissal of Count III under § 2-619(a)(1) because
this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Plaintiff in this case seeks to have Resolution 57-R-19 invalidated because the City

allegedly did not follow its own internal rules for placing an item on the May 28, 2019 City

Council Agenda as a Special Order of Business. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 17-19, 32-33. This Court,

however, cannot handle matters that effectively seek to overturn the decision of the legislative

body for an alleged failure to follow the rules set by that body. Chirikos v. Yellow Cab Co., 87

Ill. App. 3d 569, 574, 410 N.E.2d 61, 65 (1st Dist. 1980). In other words, “‘it is not the function

of the judiciary to pass upon the wisdom of legislative action.’” Id. (citing Finish Line Express,

Inc. v. City of Chicago, 72 Ill.2d 131, 138, 379 N.E.2d 290, 293 (1978)). A court may only

“overturn a legislative enactment for constitutional or statutory reasons.” Chirikos, 87 Ill. App.

9
3d at 576, 410 N.E.2d at 66; see also Baker v. Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cty., 2015 IL App (1st)

141157, ¶ 48, 33 N.E.3d 745, 756 (1st Dist. 2015) (courts may not adjudicate actions brought to
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

overrule the decisions of a legislative body based upon that legislative body’s alleged failure to

follow self-imposed requirements); Condominium Ass’n of Commonwealth Plaza v. City of

Chicago, 399 Ill. App. 3d 32, 43, 924 N.E.2d 596, 606 (1st Dist. 2010) (the mere failure of a

home rule municipality to follow its own self-imposed regulations in enacting an ordinance is

not, in and of itself, a valid basis for overturning said ordinance).

Plaintiff does not make any allegation that Resolution 57-R-19 should be invalidated for

constitutional or statutory reasons, only that the passage of the Resolution violates the City’s

own rules. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 32-33. This Court, however, lacks jurisdiction over legislative

matters. Therefore, Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should be dismissed.

IV. Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz are entitled to dismissal under § 2-


619(a)(9) because there are no claims against them and they are not the real
parties in interest.

In his complaint, Plaintiff purports to sue Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz in their

official capacities. See Compl. The City is also named as a defendant. Id. A lawsuit against an

individual in their official capacity is not a lawsuit against the individual, but rather is a lawsuit

against the governmental entity of which the individual is an agent. Schlicher v. Bd. of Fire &

Police Comm’rs of Vill. of Westmont, 363 Ill. App. 3d 869, 883, 845 N.E.2d 55, 67 (2d Dist.

2006) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3106 (1985)); see also

Office of Lake Cty. State’s Attorney v. Human Rights Comm’n, 235 Ill. App. 3d 1036, 1042, 601

N.E.2d 1294, 1298 (2d Dist. 1992). As a result, an official capacity lawsuit is to be treated as a

lawsuit against the governmental entity. Graham, 473 U.S. at 165–66, 105 S. Ct. at 3105; see

10
also Lake Cty. State’s Attorney, 235 Ill. App. 3d at 1042, 601 N.E.2d at 1298 (official capacity

lawsuit is no different from a lawsuit against the governmental entity itself).


FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

In naming Masoncup and Bobkiewicz as defendants in their official capacities along with

the City, Plaintiff has, in effect, named the City as a defendant three times. There is no claim

against Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 165–66, 105 S. Ct. at

3105 (official capacity suits merely another way of pleading an action against an entity of which

an officer is an agent). An official capacity suit “is not a suit against the official personally, for

the real party in interest is the entity.” Graham, 473 U.S. at 166, 105 S. Ct. at 3105. It is clear

from Plaintiff’s Complaint that the real party in interest is the City. Defendants Masoncup and

Bobkiewicz should, therefore, be dismissed.

V. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should be dismissed under § 2-615


because it is substantially insufficient in law.

Plaintiff purports to bring this lawsuit in his official capacity as Clerk of the City of

Evanston. See Compl. Where an individual is identified as being a party to a lawsuit in his

official capacity, the real party in interest in that lawsuit is the governmental entity. See Graham,

473 U.S. at 166, 105 S. Ct. at 3105 (official capacity suit is not a suit against the official

personally because the real party in interest is the governmental entity). In other words, an

official capacity lawsuit is to be treated as a lawsuit by or against the entity, not the individuals

named. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 165–66, 105 S. Ct. at 3105 (“[A]n official-capacity suit is, in all

respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”). By bringing this lawsuit in

his official capacity, Plaintiff effectively brings it as or on behalf of the City, who he also names

as a defendant. The legal effect of that action is that the City of Evanston is pursuing claims

against itself. Such pursuit is substantially insufficient in law and should not be permitted to

proceed. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should, therefore, be dismissed.

11
VI. Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees should be stricken under § 2-615.

In addition to his request for declaratory judgment, Plaintiff also asks this Court to order
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Defendants to pay his attorneys’ fees. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 24, 29, 34. The law in Illinois,

however, is clear that absent a statute or a contractual agreement “attorney fees and the ordinary

expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowable to the successful party.” Kerns v. Engelke,

76 Ill. 2d 154, 166, 390 N.E.2d 859, 865 (1979); see also Andrews v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

Corp., 2017 IL App (1st) 153007, ¶ 24, 77 N.E.3d 1028, 1036 (1st Dist. 2017) (Illinois follows

the “American Rule,” which requires each party to be responsible for his or her own attorneys’

fees). Plaintiff fails to identify any statute or contractual agreement that would justify awarding

him attorneys’ fees. As such, Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees should be stricken.

Conclusion

Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that Defendants provide him, in his capacity

as a FOIA officer, all officer-worn body camera footage and unredacted attorney-client

communications subject to FOIA. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 23, 28. Plaintiff, however, lacks standing

to pursue those claims. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a declaratory judgment action against

Defendants because he does not possess a personal claim, status or right which is capable of

being affected and he cannot identify any direct injury. As a result, his First Amended Complaint

should be dismissed in its entirety. Alternatively, Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims attacking the

legality of the City’s exercise of its powers.

Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has standing to pursue his claims, Counts I and II

of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are moot because Plaintiff cannot claim it is necessary

for the City to provide him copies of the materials he requests. Additionally, this Court lacks

12
jurisdiction over Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which seeks to invalidate a

legislative action for the City’s alleged failure to follow its own self-imposed requirements.
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

The real party in interest in all three counts of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is the

City. Plaintiff, however, has identified not only the City, but also Michelle Masoncup, the City’s

Corporation Counsel, and Wally Bobkiewicz, the City Manager, as defendants. Plaintiff has

named both Masoncup and Bobkiewicz in their official capacities, which is no different than

proceeding against the City itself. Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz should, therefore, be

dismissed. This Court should also strike Plaintiff’s prayer for attorneys’ fees because the general

rule in Illinois is that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees.

Lastly, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it is

substantially insufficient in law in that by proceeding in his official capacity against the City,

Plaintiff has created an action the effect of which is the City suing itself.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, City of Evanston, Michelle Masoncup, and Wally

Bobkiewicz, prays this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with

prejudice, with costs assessed against Plaintiff, and for such other and further relief this Court

deems appropriate and just.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Victoria R. Benson


Victoria R. Benson, Deputy City Attorney
One of the attorneys for Defendants

Victoria R. Benson, Deputy City Attorney (vbenson@cityofevanston.org)


Alexandra B. Ruggie, Assistant City Attorney (aruggie@cityofevanston.org)
City of Evanston Law Department
2100 Ridge Ave., Suite 4400
Evanston, Illinois 60201
(847) 866-2937
Attorney Code 46996

13
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Reid v. City of Evanston, et al.


Case No. 19 CH 5714

Defendants’ § 2-619.1 Motion to Dismiss


Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

EXHIBIT A
Return Date: No return date scheduled
Hearing Date: 9/4/2019 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM
Courtroom Number: 2008
Location: District 1 Court FILED
Cook County, IL 7/1/2019 1:42 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN
CIRCUIT CLERK
CHANCERY DIVISION, COUNTY DEPARTMENT COOK COUNTY, IL
1:42 PM 2019CH05714

2019CH05714
DEVON REID, in his official )
5608790
capacity as Clerk of the City )
of Evanston, )
) Case No. 2019-CH-05714
Plaintiff, )
7/1/2019 1:22

)
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019

v. ) Hon. Sanjay T. Tailor


)
CITY OF EVANSTON, and MICHELLE L. )
MASONCUP, in her official capacity )
as Corporation Counsel for the City )
of Evanston, WALLY BOBKIEWICZ, )
in his official capacity as City Manager )
for the City of Evanston, )
)
Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Devon Reid, in his official capacity as Clerk of the City of Evanston, hereby files

his First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701 against

the City of Evanston and its Corporation Counsel, Michelle L. Masoncup, and Wally Bobkiewicz,

and states as follows:

1. Plaintiff Devon Reid (“Clerk Reid”) is a resident of the City of Evanston, Cook

County, Illinois. Clerk Reid is the elected Clerk of the City of Evanston and the duly appointed

FOIA Officer of the City of Evanston.

2. The City of Evanston (“Evanston”) is a political subdivision in Cook County,

Illinois. Defendant Michelle L. Masoncup (“Masoncup”) is the Corporation Counsel of Evanston

and Defendant Wally Bobkiewicz (“Bobkiewicz”) is the City Manager of Evanston.


3. The Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this Complaint pursuant to

735 ILCS 5/2-209 because Defendants reside in and/or regularly transact business in Illinois.
1:42 PM 2019CH05714

4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because the events

that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred substantially in Cook County, Illinois.
7/1/2019 1:22

5. Clerk Reid, as the City Clerk, is an Officer of Evanston and the custodian and
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019

keeper of all of Evanston’s records. See Evanston Municipal Code §§1-7-2, 1-9.

6. As the FOIA Officer of Evanston, Clerk Reid has certain authority and

responsibilities as set forth in the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. See 5 ILCS 140/1, et seq.

7. Among the statutory responsibilities of Clerk Reid as the FOIA Officer are to

“issue responses under th[e FOIA] Act” and to “create a file for the retention of the original

request, a copy of the response, a record of written communications with the requester, and a

copy of other communications.” See 5 ILCS 140/3.5.

8. Clerk Reid has requested from Masoncup, Bobkiewicz, as well as certain other

officers and representatives of Evanston, in his capacity as the Clerk and FOIA Officer of

Evanston, copies of body camera footage from police officers that are requested and produced

by Evanston pursuant to FOIA.

9. The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act provides that video

footage is subject to release under FOIA in certain circumstances. See 50 ILCS 706/10-20(b).

10. In cases where Evanston has produced body camera footage pursuant to FOIA

under these exemptions, a copy of such footage must also be provided to Clerk Reid to enable

him to comply with his obligation to keep “a copy of the response” to the person making the

FOIA request; indeed, this was the standard policy and practice before Clerk Reid was elected.

2
11. By producing the body camera footage pursuant to FOIA without consulting

with the FOIA Officer, Evanston is further circumventing the authority and responsibility of the
1:42 PM 2019CH05714

FOIA Officer to issue the FOIA response. See 5 ILCS 140/3.5.

12. Clerk Reid has also requested from Masoncup, Bobkiewicz, and certain other
7/1/2019 1:22

officers and representatives of Evanston, in his capacity as the Clerk and FOIA Officer for
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019

Evanston, unredacted copies of documents produced pursuant to FOIA. Many of these

documents are redacted because they contain attorney-client communications.

13. As the Evanston City Clerk, Clerk Reid is the official keeper of the City’s

documents, and as the City of Evanston’s FOIA Officer, Clerk Reid has the responsibility to issue

the response to a FOIA request and determine whether the response is appropriate, including

whether the attorney-client privilege exemption was properly applied.

14. The Corporation Counsel represents Evanston as its client. Because Clerk Reid is

an Officer of Evanston, sharing unredacted copies of documents that include attorney-client

privileged communications with him will not waive Evanston’s privilege.

15. Accordingly, Clerk Reid should be provided with unredacted copies of the

documents he has requested, and those documents should be provided to him in the regular

course of his duties as Clerk and the FOIA Officer.

16. On May 28, 2019, after being served with this Complaint and apparently

recognizing the validity of Clerk Reid’s claims, the Evanston City Council purportedly passed

Resolution 57-R-19, appointing additional FOIA officers other than Clerk Reid, in particular for

FOIA requests to the police department and law department.

3
17. Resolution 57-R-19 was placed on the Council agenda as a “Special Order of

Business”.
1:42 PM 2019CH05714

18. Pursuant Rule 18.11 of the Rules and Organization of the City Council of the City

of Evanston dated April 16, 2019, a Special Order of Business “refers to Council consideration of
7/1/2019 1:22

a docket item which will be considered at a specified date previously agreed upon by a majority
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019

vote of the Council (emphasis added).”

19. The Council had never previously agreed by majority vote to consider Resolution

57-R-19 at a specified date, whether the May 28, 2019 Council meeting or otherwise.

Accordingly, Resolution 57-R-19 was not properly on the Council agenda, and the Council’s vote

on the Resolution is invalid.

COUNT I
(Declaratory Judgment regarding Body Camera Footage)

20. Reid hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-19 as though

fully set forth herein.

21. There is a current legal controversy between Clerk Reid and Defendants over the

scope of Clerk Reid’s authority and responsibilities as Clerk and FOIA Officer with respect to the

production of officer body camera footage pursuant to FOIA.

22. It is Clerk Reid’s position that all body camera footage requested and produced

in response to a FOIA request should be provided to him as the FOIA Officer enable him to issue

the FOIA response and maintain a copy of the response, but Defendants disagree and have

refused to provide Clerk Reid with the requested information.

23. Clerk Reid therefore prays for a declaration from this Court that the Illinois FOIA

statute requires Defendants to provide all body camera footage subject to FOIA to Clerk Reid to

4
issue the response, including making determinations of whether body camera footage shall be

released, and to keep a copy of the response, including a copy of the footage.
1:42 PM 2019CH05714

24. Clerk Reid further prays that Defendants be ordered to pay his attorneys’ fees.

COUNT II
(Declaratory Judgment regarding Documents Redacted for Attorney-Client Privilege)
7/1/2019 1:22
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019

25. Reid hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-24 as though

fully set forth herein.

26. There is a current legal controversy between Clerk Reid and Defendants over the

scope of Clerk Reid’s authority and responsibilities as Clerk and FOIA Officer with respect to

producing and maintaining documents that may include attorney-client communications

pursuant to FOIA.

27. It is Clerk Reid’s position that all documents requested and produced in response

to a FOIA request should be provided to him in unredacted form as the FOIA Officer enable him

to issue the FOIA response and maintain a copy of the response, but Defendants disagree.

28. Clerk Reid therefore prays for a declaration from this Court that the Illinois FOIA

statute requires Defendants to provide all documents that potentially contain attorney-client

communications subject to FOIA to Clerk Reid in unredacted form to issue the response,

including making determinations of whether the redactions are proper.

29. Clerk Reid further prays that Defendants be ordered to pay his attorneys’ fees.

COUNT III
(Declaratory Judgment regarding Resolution 57-R-19)

30. Reid hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-29 as though

fully set forth herein.

5
31. There is a current legal controversy between Clerk Reid and Defendants over

whether Resolution 57-R-19 was properly placed on the Council agenda as a Special Order of
1:42 PM 2019CH05714

Business and whether the Council’s vote on the Resolution is valid.

32. It is Clerk Reid’s position that Resolution 57-R-19 was not properly placed on the
7/1/2019 1:22

Council’s May 28, 2019 as a Special Order of Business because a majority of the Council had not
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019

previously voted to consider it at that time and it is therefore an invalid Resolution, but

Defendants disagree.

33. Clerk Reid therefore prays for a declaration from this Court that Resolution 57-R-

19 is invalid.

34. Clerk Reid further prays that Defendants be ordered to pay his attorneys’ fees.

Dated: June 3, 2019 DEVON REID

By: /s/ Ed Mullen


His Attorney

Ed Mullen (Atty. No. 44423)


Bucktown Law
2129 N. Western Ave.
Chicago, IL 60647
312-508-9433
ed_mullen@mac.com

6
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Reid v. City of Evanston, et al.


Case No. 19 CH 5714

Defendants’ § 2-619.1 Motion to Dismiss


Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

EXHIBIT B
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Reid v. City of Evanston, et al.


Case No. 19 CH 5714

Defendants’ § 2-619.1 Motion to Dismiss


Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

EXHIBIT C
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING


CITY OF EVANSTON, ILLINOIS


LORRAINE H. MORTON CIVIC CENTER
JAMES C. LYTLE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Tuesday, May 29th, 2019

Present:
Alderman Fiske Alderman Rue Simmons

Alderman Braithwaite Alderman Revelle

Alderman Wynne Alderman Rainey

Alderman Wilson Alderman Fleming

(8)
Absent:
Alderman Suffredin (1)

Presiding: Mayor Stephen Hagerty

Devon Reid
City Clerk
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Mayor’s Public Announcements

Mayor Hagerty Announcements and 1 Proclamation: Watch

● National Senior Health & Fitness Day - May 29, 2019


● National CPR and AED Week – Presentation to Sarah Agnew
● Canal Shores Golf Course 100th Anniversary - May 28, 2019
● 100th Anniversary of Illinois Being the First State to Ratify the 19th
● Amendment - June 10, 2019

Mayor Hagerty presented Sarah Agnew two awards in recognition of her bravery for
performing CPR on her father and ultimately saving his life.

City Manager’s Public Announcements

Deputy City Manager Kimberly Richardson invited interim Health and Human Services Watch
Director, Ike Ogbo, to speak about the upcoming We’re Out Walking (WOW) Kick-Off event.
Director of Parks & Recreation, Lawrence Hemingway, gave a presentation for the U.S.
Lifesaving Presentation. Lastly, Chief Scott was invited to present the Fire Department
promotions.

City Clerk’s Communications

City Clerk Reid gave a statement related to Mayor Hagerty’s proposal to appoint 3 more Watch
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers.

Public Comment

Harris Miller Asked City Council to opposed Resolution 57-R-19, designating Watch
additional Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers. Said it’s Clerk
Reid’s sole responsibility to maintain transparency. Also believes not
allowing public comment during last weeks Robert Crown meeting
could be a violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA).
Mike Vasilko Requested City Council vote against Resolution 57-R-19. Said this Watch
resolution is not designed to help FOIA but to prevent the information
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

the public is allowed to see. Stated the Clerk’s Office is doing a great
job handling FOIA’s. Would like Clerk Reid to remain as the FOIA
Officer for the City of Evanston. Claims this proposal is not a policy
matter but a direct attack against the City Clerk.

Curtis Evans Voiced his support for Clerk Reid and his office to remain the FOIA Watch
Officer for the city.

James Engelman Asked if the picnic tables at city parks could be made wheelchair Watch
accessible.

Jackson Paller Spoke against Mayor Hagerty’s proposal to appoint additional Watch
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers. Said this proposal would
damage public trust and looking at other municipalities which have
multiple FOIA Officers is not a justification to appoint more officers
here in the city.

Leila Raab Opposed Resolution 57-R-19, designating additional Freedom of Watch


Information Act (FOIA) Officers.

Vicky Pasenko Co-Founder and Co-President of the Evanston Animal Shelter Watch
Association. Talked about the impact her organization has on the
community and its pets.

Elliot Zashin Opposed Resolution 57-R-19. Asked City Council to vote against the Watch
resolution or at the very least table the discussion until there can be a
demonstration of the necessity of additional FOIA Officers.

Tina Stevenson Believes City Councils action to appoint additional FOIA Officers in Watch
an attempt to undermine the voters who elected Clerk Reid. Would
like the of FOIA to be kept under Devon Reid.

Mary Rosinski She stated it is not democratic nor efficient in allowing the City Clerk Watch
to fulfill his responsibilities as an elected official. She also spoke
about the finances of the Robert Crown project.

Robert Cruz Voiced his support for Clerk Reid. Watch

Christopher Kruger Supported Clerk Reid’s decision to file a lawsuit against the City of Watch
Evanston. Said the proposed resolution is a dilution of the Clerk’s
powers.

Patrick Executive Director of the James B. Moran Center for Youth Advocacy Watch
Keenan-Devlin who spoke about Resolution 68-R-18 and Ordinance 159-O-18.

Ray Friedman Opposed Resolution 57-R-19, designating additional Freedom of Watch


Information Act (FOIA) Officers.

Jillian Gilburne Intern of the Clerk’s Office who voiced her support for Clerk Reid. Watch
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Does not support placing FOIA responsibilities in the hands of


non-elected staff.

Rodney Greene Former City Clerk Greene stated it was never the City Clerk’s Watch
responsibility as FOIA Officer to redact or hold Police or Fire
Department records. Suggested appointing an independent officer
who is well versed in FOIA law.

Carl Klein Talked about the proposed text amendment to allow office uses and Watch
revised special conditions for office use in a residential district which
will go before the Plan Commission.

Meg Welch Stated there was a petition with nearly 400 signatures that opposed Watch
the proposal to appoint additional Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Officers. Asked City Council members to vote against Resolution
57-R-19

Doreen Price Stated the City Council was looking to diffuse the powers of the City Watch
Clerk. Asked why there wasn’t a rush to replace the HHS Director.
Asked about funds being placed into funding Robert Crown.

Yvi Russell Opposed Resolution 57-R-19, designating additional Freedom of Watch


Information Act (FOIA) Officers. Stated this proposal will further
diminish the democratic rights of transparency for residents of the
city.

Carlis Sutton Requested City Council to vote against Resolution 57-R-19. Is open Watch
to exploring possibilities that seek to resolve inefficiency of response
time relating to FOIA. Questioned the benefit of designating
additional FOIA Officers. Voiced his support for the
Fleetwood-Jourdain interior renovations and implored City Council
members to employ local minority contractors to lead the renovations.
Lastly, he voiced his support for Resolution 68-R-18.

Nancy Sreenan Asked City Council to vote against Resolution 57-R-19. Said the Watch
proposed resolution is an abuse of power and erosion of democracy.
Stated that the city continues to remain secretive on issues that
concern residents such as Robert Crown, Harley Clarke, and Albion
tower. Sought to understand the rush for approval of the resolution
and lack of public discussion.

Albert Gibbs Stated he was never treated respectfully throughout his entire life at Watch
Robert Crown. Said he was called a derogatory name as a child
when he would compete for the city at Robert Crown. Believes the
city is manipulating the African-American youth and others into
believing the city is all for inclusion for the community. Lastly, he
described the difficult process he faced when trying to obtain police
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

records through the FOIA process.

Bobby Burns Inquired about who would benefit from the proposal to appoint Watch
additional Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers. During his
time as interim Deputy City Clerk, Mr. Burns stated he spoke with
several individuals who said Evanston was the best place to submit
FOIA requests because of the progressive feature that places an
elected, independent office as the sole FOIA office. When the
decision to consider if this proposal is in the best interest of the
public, he asked the City Council to use the activist, journalist, and
individuals who have exposed wrongdoing by public bodies as the
witnesses. He is troubled to see there is the potential of removing the
FOIA office as the inspector of records and along with it, the trust
between residents and City Council. He still has not heard a valid
argument on how the proposal would make Evanston better.

Special Order of Business

(SP1) ​Approving Designation of Additional Freedom of Information Motion: Ald. Watch


Act Officers Wilson

Resolution 57-R-19, Appointing Additional Freedom of Information Act


(FOIA) Officers is submitted for consideration and approval.

For Action
Passed 5-3 ​ Ald. Rue Simmons, Rainey and Fleming voted “No”
Consent Agenda
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

(M1) ​Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 13, Motion: Ald. Watch
2019 Rue Simmons

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A1) ​Payroll – April 29, 2019 through May 12, 2019 $ 2,708,964.68

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A2)​ Bills List – May 29, 2019 $


4,115,497.64

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A3) Contract Award with Culy Contracting, LLC for the 2019
Structure Lining Bid

City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for the
2019 Structure Lining (Bid No. 19-15) with Culy Contracting, LLC (5
Industrial Park Drive, P.O. Box 29, Winchester, IN 47394) in the amount of
$100,420. Funding for this project is from the Sewer Fund (Account
515.40.4535.62461- 419005), which has an FY 2019 budget of $165,000
for this work, all of which is remaining.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A4) ​Contract Award with J.A. Johnson Paving Company for the 2019
Motor Fuel Tax Street Resurfacing Project

City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for the
2019 Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) Street Resurfacing Project (Bid No. 19-24)
with J.A. Johnson Paving Company (1025 E. Addison Court, Arlington
Heights, IL 60005) in the amount of $1,005,700. Funding will be provided
from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund (Account 200.26.5100.65515 – 418002),
which has a total FY 2019 budget allocation for this project of $1,206,000,
all of which is remaining.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A5) ​Contract Extension with Corrective Asphalt Materials for
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Reclamite Pavement Sealing

City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a one-year contract


extension for Reclamite pavement sealing with Corrective Asphalt
Materials (43W630 Wheeler Road, Sugar Grove, IL 60554) in the amount
of $50,000. This contract award is part of a bid led by the Municipal
Partnering Initiative (MPI). Funding for this work will be from the Capital
Improvement Program Fund (Account 415.40.4119.65515-419010), which
is budgeted for $100,000 and has a current unencumbered balance of
$50,000.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A6) ​Contract Award with W Construction, Inc. for


Fleetwood-Jourdain Interior Renovation

City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for the
Fleetwood-Jourdain Community Center Interior Renovation (RFP 19-13)
with W Construction, Inc. (655 Paxton Place, Carol Stream, IL 60188) in
the amount of $585,000. Funding is available in the amount of $440,000
from 2019 General Obligation Bonds and $145,000 from Good Neighbor
Funds. A detailed project funding breakdown is included in the
corresponding transmittal memo.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A7) ​Construction Bid Award with Hacienda Landscaping, Inc. for the
Garden Park and Playground Renovations

City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for the
Garden Park and Playground Renovation Project with Hacienda
Landscaping Inc. (17840 Grove Road, Minooka, IL 60447) in the amount
of $463,637. Funding will be provided from Capital Improvements Fund
2019 General Obligation Bonds (Account 415.40.4119.65515.518002).
This project was budgeted at $500,000 in FY 2019, all of which is
remaining.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A8) ​Purchase of Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Library General Purpose Furniture from Forward Space

City Council approved office, library, and general purpose furniture


purchases for the Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and
Library from Forward Space (1142 N. North Branch Street, Chicago, IL
60642) in the amount of $408,072.85. Funding for this purchase will be
provided from Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2019 General
Obligation Bonds (Account 416.40.4160.65515 – 616017). The current
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FFE) budget for this project is
$910,000, all of which is remaining.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A9) ​Purchase of Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and


Library Pre-School Furniture from Forward Space

City Council approved preschool furniture purchases for the Robert Crown
Community Center, Ice Complex and Library from Lakeshore Learning
(2695 E. Dominguez Street, Carson, CA 90895) in the amount of
$40,454.46. Funding for this purchase will be provided from Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) 2019 General Obligation Bonds (Account
416.40.4160.65515 – 616017). The current Furniture, Fixtures and
Equipment (FFE) budget for this project is $910,000, all of which is
remaining.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A10) ​Contract Award with Blessing Hancock for the Robert Crown
Community Center, Ice Complex and Library Public Art

City Council approved a public art contract for the Robert Crown
Community Center, Ice Complex and Library with Blessing Hancock (4340
79th Avenue NW, Olympia, WA 98502) in the amount of $325,000.
Funding for this purchase will be provided from Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) 2019 General Obligation Bonds (Account
416.40.4160.65515 – 616017). The current public art budget for this
project is $335,000.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A11) ​Sole-source Agreement with Elcast Lighting for Street Light
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Fixture Repairs

City Council authorized the City Manager to approve an agreement for the
sole-source repair of: 164 – Tallmadge Induction lighting units; and 57 –
Induction Davit fixtures with Elcast Lighting (815 S. Kay Avenue, Addison,
IL, 60101) in the amount of $42,424. Funding for this purchase will come
from the Capital Improvement Program 2019 General Obligation Bond
(Account 415.40.4119.65515-419022), which has a FY 2019 budget of
$210,000 for lighting and pavement marking projects. The remaining
balance in the account is $129,000.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A12) ​Approval of Great Merchant Grant Program Financial


Assistance to the Noyes and West Village Business Districts

City Council approved to provide financial assistance through the Great


Merchants Grant Program, for an amount not to exceed $10,940. The
Noyes Business District will receive $10,000 and the West Village
Business Association will receive $940. Staff recommends utilizing the
Economic Development Business District Improvement Program (Account
100.21.5300.65522). The approved 2019 Fiscal Year Budget allocated
$150,000 to this account. To date, $93,411.05 has been spent from this
account, leaving $56,588.95 available for expenditure.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A13) ​Approval of Funding for 12-month Period for Chicago’s North


Shore Convention and Visitors Bureau (CNSCVB)

City Council authorized funding for Chicago’s North Shore Convention and
Visitors Bureau (CNSCVB) in the amount of $83,609 for a period
commencing July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. Funding will be provided
from the Economic Development Partnership Account (Account
100.21.5300.62659). The City Council approved $147,000 in the 2019
budget with a commitment of $50,000 to Downtown Evanston for
maintenance contract reimbursements. To date, $12,500 has been
distributed, leaving a balance of $134,500.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A14) ​Resolution 55-R-19, Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Funds

City Council adopted Resolution 55-R-19 authorizing the City Manager to


apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant Funds from
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for intersection improvements
at Ridge & Oakton, Ridge & Main, Ridge & Greenleaf, Ridge & Dempster,
Ridge & Lake, Ridge & Davis and Ridge & Church. The estimated total
design and construction cost of the Ridge Avenue Intersection
Improvements Project is $860,000, of which $700,000 would be funded by
HSIP Grant funds and the remaining $160,000 from the City. The City
portion is funded from the Ridge Avenue signal study (Account
415.40.4119.62145 – 419008) which has a total FY 2019 Budget of
$175,000.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A15) ​Resolution 54-R-19, Appointing a Director and Alternate


Director to the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County

City Council adopted Resolution 54-R-19 appointing Mayor Hagerty as


Director on the Board of Directors of the Solid Waste Agency of North
Cook County and City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz as the Alternate
Director.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A16) ​Ordinance 37-O-19, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a


Sale Contract for City Owned Real Property located at 1824 Emerson
Street

City Council adopted Ordinance 37-O-19, authorizing the City Manager to


execute a sales contract for City-owned real property located at 1824
Emerson Street to Evanston Township High School District No. 202
(“ETHS”) for affordable housing. A two-thirds majority is required for
adoption of this ordinance.

For Introduction
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A17) ​Ordinance 48-O-19, Amending the City Code to Establish a
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

4-Way Stop Control at the Intersection of Brown Avenue and Noyes


Street

City Council adopted Ordinance 48-O-19 by which the City Council would
amend Section 10-11-5(D), Schedule V(D) of the City Code to establish a
4-Way Stop Control at the intersection of Brown Avenue and Noyes
Street. Funding will be through the General Fund-Traffic Control Supplies
(Account 100.40.4520.65115), with a budget of $58,000 for FY 2019.

For Introduction
Approved on Consent Agenda

(A18) ​Ordinance 42-O-19, Authorization to Enter into a Real Estate Motion: Ald. Watch
Contract for Sale of City-Owned Real Property at 2222 Oakton Street Rue Simmons
to Clark Street Real Estate, LLC

Staff recommends City Council adoption of Ordinance 42-O-19,


“Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Real Estate Contract with
Clark Street Real Estate, LLC for the Sale of City-Owned Real Property
Located at 2222 Oakton Street.” A two-thirds majority of City Council is
required to adopt the ordinance.

Motion to hold the item until the June 10 City Council meeting. Motion: Ald.
Rue Simmons
For Action
Held until June 10 City Council meeting

(A19) ​Ordinance 53-O-19, Amending City Code to Modify the No


Parking Restrictions on Howard Street from Chicago Avenue to
Ridge Avenue

City Council adopted Ordinance 53-O-19, amending Subsection KK of


Title 10, Chapter 11, Schedule 9 “Parking Prohibited at Certain Times”
changing the time of day when parking is prohibited. This ordinance will
change the restriction against parking on Howard Street from Chicago
Avenue to Ridge Avenue from midnight to 3 a.m.

For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(O1) ​Resolution 52-R-19, Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate Watch
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

and Execute a Grant Agreement with the Evanston Animal Shelter


Association to Fund Operations

City Council adopted Resolution 52-R-19 authorizing the City Manager to


negotiate and execute an agreement with the Evanston Animal Shelter
Association to fund operations by providing a $100,000 grant and supplies
reimbursement for the period of June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2019.
Funding will be provided from the City’s Animal Control budget (Account
100.22.2280.62272) with a budget of $100,000, all of which is remaining.

For Action
Passed 8-0

(O2) ​Resolution 68-R-18, In Support of Employing Administrative Watch


Adjudication as an Alternative to the Criminal Justice System for
Juveniles, and Ordinance 159-O-18, Amending Portions of the City
Code Incorporating Restorative Justice Practices for Minors

City Council adopted Resolution 68-R-18, In Support of Employing


Administrative Adjudication as an Alternative to the Criminal Justice
System for Juveniles, and Ordinance 159-O18, Amending Portions of the
City Code Incorporating Restorative Justice Practices for Minors.

For Action
Passed 8-0

Call of the Wards

Ward 1st Ward meeting on June 4 at Fountain Square beginning at 7 p.m. Watch
1:

Ward Shared his remarks regarding the Robert Crown meeting held last week. Said it Watch
2: was unfortunate to see a lack of civility during the meeting. Offered an apology to
Madeline Ducree and others who felt their concerns weren’t being heard. Said it
was difficult to maintain order during the meeting while several members of the
public were shouting. Thanked and acknowledged the individuals who donate
towards different city projects.

Ward No Report Watch


3:
Ward No Report Watch
4:
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Ward Shared her condolences to the family of Pauletta Kennedy-Moody. Ald. Rue Watch
5: Simmons called for all resources available to prevent gun crime. Asked residents
with information about gun crimes to contact the police. There will be a reception
for all 5th Ward graduates on June 12 at 7 p.m. in Room G300 at the Civic Center.
Made a referral to the Equity and Empowerment Commission on a local
reparations policy.

Ward No Report Watch


6:

Ward Shared her congratulated Canal Shores Golf Course on their 100th Anniversary Watch
7:

Ward Made a referral to the Planning and Development Committee regarding Watch
8: inclusionary housing ordinance. Also congratulated all the firefighters promoted at
the City Council meeting.

Ward Made a referral to Human Services Committee regarding the healthy workplace Watch
9: process.

Adjournment

Mayor Hagerty called a voice vote to adjourn the City Council meeting, and by unanimous vote
the meeting was adjourned. Ald. Wilson led City Council into Executive Session. A roll call vote
was taken and by a unanimous vote (8-0) City Council recessed into Executive Session.
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

Reid v. City of Evanston, et al.


Case No. 19 CH 5714

Defendants’ § 2-619.1 Motion to Dismiss


Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

EXHIBIT D
May 28, 2019 Evanston City Council meeting
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9aXCDU7ifU&feature=youtu.be