The Transparency Recession

ORLAND PARK, IL. – Nearly every candidate running for office in 2025—whether for village board, school board, fire district, or township—ran on a platform of transparency. It was the unifying promise: more openness, more access, and more accountability to the public.

But just weeks into their terms, the actions of several local government units suggest the opposite. Across Orland Park, transparency isn’t moving forward—it’s sliding backward.

From meeting videos edited to remove public voices, to key decisions made without disclosing documents beforehand, to boards that refuse even to livestream their meetings in the first place, the pattern is no longer anecdotal. It is systemic. And it undermines the very trust these officials promised to uphold.

District 135: When Public Comments Disappear

Perhaps the most blatant act of silencing came from School District 135, which quietly removed the public comment segments from its posted meeting videos. Those who attended meetings in person confirmed that residents spoke—sometimes critically—but the official video archives were edited to erase those voices.

The district may attempt to justify this by claiming the edits were made to protect minor students. But that rationale does not hold up under scrutiny:

• The Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120) requires that public meetings be conducted openly and that records of those meetings, once made, reflect the entire public proceeding. Once a public body posts a video of its meeting, editing out segments—especially those involving public participation—undermines the integrity of the public record.
• If a speaker were to reference a minor by name or reveal protected student information, the district could redact or mute that portion. What it cannot do is remove the entire comment period simply to avoid the possibility of sensitive content.
• The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects student educational records, not general public commentary. A parent expressing frustration with a policy or classroom experience is not violating FERPA, unless they directly disclose identifiable academic data—an exceedingly rare occurrence during public comment.
• Wholesale deletion of public input erodes public trust. Editing out this segment does not protect students; it protects officials from accountability.

If District 135 was concerned about protecting privacy, it had legal tools at its disposal to narrowly tailor redactions. Instead, it chose to eliminate the public’s voice altogether.

District 146 has followed a similar path, posting a disclaimer on its BoardDocs site stating that “public comment will not be available via YouTube.” This signals that the exclusion of public voices is becoming a normalized practice across school districts.

Orland Fire Protection District: Transparency Rejected

Some boards didn’t regress—they simply never progressed.

On May 22, 2025, the Orland Fire Protection District (OFPD) Board voted against a motion (RFBA 25-53) that would have brought livestreaming to their public meetings. Despite modern video capabilities, a simple setup process, and growing public support, the board declined to act.

A revised version of the proposal (RFBA 25-65), introduced in June, would enable streaming using existing technology for less than $2,000. That updated motion has not yet been heard, and residents remain hopeful that the board will reconsider and bring OFPD into the digital era.

Other Boards: Still Operating in the Dark

A surprising number of local governing bodies in Orland Park continue to operate without livestreaming, despite managing large budgets, educational oversight, or essential services. These include:

• Orland Fire Protection District (which recently voted against livestreaming board meetings)
• District 230 (which oversees Carl Sandburg, Amos Alonzo Stagg, and Victor J. Andrew High Schools)
• District 140 (Kirby School District)
• Orland Township
• Orland Park Public Library Board

Not only do these boards fail to provide livestreams, but some—like Orland Township—are also slow in posting meeting minutes. As of this writing, the Township has not published minutes for at least three meetings, despite those minutes reportedly being approved nearly a week ago. Their agendas also do not include any documentation or other references they may be using for their deliberation.

<<EDIT: The three meetings consist of 1 regular meeting and 2 special meetings. However, the point remains that the approved minutes have not been posted 7 days after approval. Under state law, the window is 10 days—but we can hope for better and more timely reporting.>>

And while some may claim livestreaming would be a burden, the Orland Park Public Library has previously hosted livestreamed events—proving the capability already exists. The decision not to stream board meetings is therefore not about resources; it’s about intent.

In a community of nearly 60,000 residents, many of whom juggle jobs, families, and other concerns, requiring in-person attendance to hear public comment—or omitting access to meetings entirely—excludes and disenfranchises the very people these bodies are meant to serve.

The Village of Orland Park: Transparency Rolled Back

Since the April 2025 election, residents have witnessed a deliberate rollback of transparency norms:

• Meeting materials, including contracts and proposals, are no longer consistently posted prior to votes. When asked, Village Manager George Koczwara told residents, “They’ll be public once executed. Holding them back now helps our negotiating power.”
• Contracts with potential political connections have been approved without full public review—including those for the Village Manager, the Village Attorney, the Village Prosecutor, and 11 additional law firms.
  • The Village Manager was appointed without a job posting or a formal search process, strongly suggesting that a decision had already been made during the mayoral campaign—well before any public engagement or open evaluation. A FOIA for his personnel records returned overly redacted files, but included a disciplinary action he received for “Inappropriate behavior.” The record noted that he was required to complete two courses within 20 days—constituting a final disciplinary determination under Illinois law. As such, these records should not be redacted per 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(n).
  • While the contract was disclosed, the agreement with PubliCity Communications, the new PR firm, was awarded without competitive bidding. The contract contains no clearly defined deliverables, lacks performance measures, and outlines no structured reporting process. The firm is owned by a former village employee who was revealed by a trustee during a meeting to have been terminated for cause. When her disciplinary records were requested, the village redacted key findings—even though, as noted earlier, Illinois law requires such information to be disclosed:
    

    📜 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(n): “Records relating to a public body’s adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases… shall be disclosed if the discipline is imposed.”

    If the two records overlap—given that she reported to the Village Manager, who also terminated her employment—it raises a legitimate question as to whether the awarded contract may in fact constitute an undisclosed settlement.
  • The Village Attorney, Ancel Glink, was appointed without disclosure of competing bids or any opportunity for public review. The firm had represented Mayor Dodge during his 2025 campaign, yet no payments to the firm were found in campaign filings—raising further questions about transparency and ethics. When the potential conflict was raised during a public meeting, the Mayor refused to address it directly, instead redirecting attention to the firm’s credentials. Additionally, the public was not informed of the firm’s proposed fees, and the board voted 4–3—with the Mayor casting the tie-breaking vote—to grant him the authority to approve the undisclosed contract without further board discussion or public input.
  • The Village Prosecutor was also appointed without public deliberation. He is known to be a close political ally of Mayor Dodge and was reportedly involved in campaign efforts. No evaluation of alternative candidates or legal qualifications was shared publicly before his selection.
  • Eleven additional law firms were approved at the same meeting—most labeled only as “as needed.” No clear justification or anticipated use was provided for many of these appointments, suggesting the board may be pre-positioning legal resources for future political or legal conflicts, rather than addressing current legal needs. Notably, Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins (KTJ)—the village’s previous legal counsel and a frequent target of criticism due to their disclosed contributions to prior campaigns—was included on the “as needed” list. While some expected this administration to cut ties entirely, the firm was not removed, indicating a more complicated political calculation than public statements might suggest.
• Trustees have reportedly received official materials via a private Dropbox account, rather than through the village’s public legislative platform. This approach raises concerns about potential violations of the Illinois Open Meetings Act, which prohibits off-the-record deliberation among elected officials.

These are not bureaucratic missteps. They are strategic choices, executed with precision—each one reducing the public’s ability to monitor, question, or influence how their government is run.

The False Promise of Transparency

Voters were promised openness. Instead, they’re confronted with unwarranted redactions, missing records, and evasive explanations. Transparency wasn’t a fringe issue in the 2025 election—it was a core promise made by nearly every campaign. Yet time and again, the actions of those elected have contradicted that commitment.

• Public comments removed.
• Contracts concealed until too late—or not at all.
• Boards choosing silence over streaming.
• Trustees receiving materials through private file sharing tools.

This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a culture shift—one that must be challenged before it becomes the norm.

What Real Transparency Looks Like

Local government doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel to earn back public trust. It simply needs to do the basics well:

• Livestream and archive all public meetings.
• Post full, unedited videos and approved minutes within 48 hours.
• Publish all supporting materials—before votes take place.
• Include losing proposals and evaluation scorecards in bid results.
• Prohibit private communication tools (e.g., Dropbox) that shield deliberations from public view.
• Preserve public comment segments in every meeting archive—unedited and complete.

Conclusion: The Choice Ahead

Transparency is a choice. Every public body in Orland Park has the power to adopt these practices today—with little cost and enormous benefit. But that may only happen if residents demand it.

We should not have to fight for access to information that is already ours. And we should not have to FOIA our way into decisions made with our tax dollars.

If government truly belongs to the people, then the people must be able to see it—clearly, fully, and without delay.

This article reflects our analysis and opinions based on publicly available information, meeting records, and Illinois statutes.