MOUs and MOAs in Orland Park

Toward the end of the Committee of the Whole meeting on July 7, 2025, there was a discussion regarding the village entering into an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the AFSCME union regarding two issues.

While the issues are important, they are not important in the context of this article.

First, there two things at play.

A Memorandum of Understanding differs slightly from a Memorandum of Agreement.

The village of Orland Park, like many governmental and private entities, has, periodically, entered into both over the years.

MOUs and MOAs can be between communities, other governmental agencies, charities, universities, and whatever else you can think of.

The purpose of an MOU is to outline the intentions of the parties to cooperate on a project or goal. MOUs, specifically, are not typically legally binding. There are no enforcement obligations, in general.

On the other hand, an MOA specifies clear roles, responsibilities and actions that each party agrees to take. It is more of a contract than the friendlier MOU.

Depending upon the language and execution, an MOA is legally binding. There are a lot more “shall” and “will” words sprinkled throughout the document.

In short, MOAs are formal while MOUs are more informal.

Both have a place in village government.

In 2020, the village entered into an MOA between the Metropolitan Alliance of Police Chapter #159 and Orland Park Police Department over the use of body cameras.

This was approved as part of the Consent Agenda.

In 2021, the Board of Trustees approved an MOU between the village and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 399 regarding compensatory time.

There were no “nay” votes.

In 2022, there were two separate MOUs between the village and the Metropolitan Alliance of Police Chapter #159, again. One issue was over performance evaluations, and the other was over longevity pay.

There were no “nay” votes.

There was another MOU in 2022 over a settlement agreement involving International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 399.

Again…no “nays”.

There were no “nays” when the Board of Trustees approved an MOU in 2022 regarding telecommunicator compensation between AFSCME and the Orland Joint Emergency Telephone System Board.

Getting back to the Committee of the Whole meeting on July 7, 2025, I was taken aback by comments made by two of the trustees who had voted in favor of all the MOUs that I’ve already outlined in the past five years.

One trustee began with, “And if I’m remembering correctly, George (referring to the village manager), you did the collective bargaining between AFSCME and the village, correct?”

The village manager clarified his role.

“It seems to me these items should be done during collective bargaining and shouldn’t…because at what point are we going to open up all of our other contracts with all of our other employee unions?

I think we’re setting a poor example going forward. I think it could be used against us.

I think in your writing you (addressing the village manager) said that their current agreement expires April 30, 2026. Okay…that’s nine months away. It’s my feeling, and this isn’t any reflection on public works, but its my feeling if we have an agreement, both sides should stick to it.

If they want a change, you should do so at bargaining. Because if we’re giving up, what are we getting? Since it’s a give-and-take. Right now, we’re just arbitrarily giving up something with nine months left in the agreement.

Why have agreements…if we’re willing to change them?”

The village manager went on to explain the background for the MOUs.

The trustee continued following the village manager’s explanation, “But correct me…correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe both of these items have…we’ve discussed in the past during bargaining.”

She went on with, “But you know, sometimes it’s not always giving somebody what they want, that they didn’t get in the first place, and pouting, and then getting…is like kids, right? So, I don’t agree with making changes when these issues have clearly been bargained. Thank you.”

After, another trustee who was in favor of the previous MOUs offered a follow-up: “I get it. You know, you contribute to the campaign and four of (the) people up here accepted money from labor…we owe…something. I mean, come on, we got to get them…we got…you know, they got to get something for that. I just find it objectionable. Thank you very much.”

The problem with the outrage is that it rings hollow. It becomes Kabuki theater. Nothing more.

If you’re already on record as approving the previous labor-related MOUs and an MOA, without objection, then the current handwringing over issuing mid-contract MOUs suddenly fades like hot breath on glass.

I urge you go watch the YouTube video. Unfortunately, the Committee of the Whole meeting approaches the length of a Wagnerian opera.

But there’s a lot going on that needs time and attention from the current administration.

I’ll save you time. Start the video at 2h:32m into the over 3-hour session. Watch for yourself.