The Will County Ordinance Review Committee on Tuesday reviewed proposed revisions to the county code intended to modernize language and align local rules with state law, voted to forward Title I to the County Executive for further consideration and approved an amendment to meeting-parliamentary language that explicitly preserves exceptions in Roberts Rules of Order.

The committees review, led by the committees legal adviser, Phil Mack, focused on updating old statutory citations and removing procedural provisions that no longer match the countys executive form of government. Mack said the code contained language dating as far back as the 1940s and that some provisions remained from when the county board exercised administrative functions that now fall to the County Executive.

"The last time the entire code of ordinance is done was 1981," Phil Mack, committee counsel, said, adding that he is tracking recent state law changes so local language matches current statutes. "We undertook this in order to just basically bring them up to date." Mack also described his process for circulating strikeout-and-addition drafts to committee members and for producing clean copies for the executive committee and the full board.

Why it matters: The revisions aim to align Will Countys ordinances with state law and the countys current organizational structure, reduce internal inconsistency, and to make statutory authority easier to find. Committee members said they want clearer citation and better procedures for pre-meeting review to reduce time spent during committee meetings.

Major committee actions and votes at the meeting included approval of the Oct. 15 minutes and a recommendation to forward Title I (General Provisions, Chapter 10) to the County Executive for further review and possible adoption by the full board. The Title I recommendation passed on a roll call; committee members recorded their support and the chair announced the motion passed.

The committee also debated language in Title 3 (Administration), Chapter 30 (County Board) about parliamentary procedure. Members discussed a contested phrase, "speak only when recognized by the county executive during county board meetings or by the committee chair at committee meetings." Member Butler said the county board previously voted to remove the word "only" at a prior board meeting and raised concerns that the committees draft did not reflect that change. The group spent substantial time on whether the formulation could limit members ability to raise parliamentary inquiries or points of order.

To resolve the concern, the committee approved an amendment to the draft rule that preserves the "speak when recognized" requirement while explicitly excepting the limited procedural calls that Roberts Rules provides. The adopted language reads, in effect, that members should speak only when recognized by the chair or county executive but that recognized parliamentary procedures provided in Roberts Rules of Order (for example, points of order and parliamentary inquiries) remain applicable.

"Unless you don't know the rules, unless maybe they didn't know the rules, they why would you put a rule that supposedly only mimics the rule that's already in place?" Member Butler said during debate, arguing for clarification so members retain statutory and procedural protections. The committee then approved the amended wording on a roll call vote.

Other substantive topics discussed included:
- Settlement authority: Mack advised that settling large claims is typically an executive function and described a standing administrative practice that settlements up to $100,000 can be handled administratively (with risk management/human resources or authorized counsel), while larger settlements are brought to the board. "Theoretically and technically, you guys shouldn't be doing approvals of settlements because that's an executive function," Mack said. The draft ordinance retains a $100,000 threshold for board approval, while Mack noted his office left the provision in place at the request of staff.

- Public comment scope: The committee clarified two customary public-comment slots in the proposed rules: one for comment on agenda items prior to committee or board votes, and a second for comments "relevant to matters under the jurisdiction of the county" (topics falling within county authority). Mack and members discussed that county meetings are not a public forum for matters outside the countys jurisdiction and that the chair may rule such remarks out of order.

- Agenda and notice procedures: Members asked for clearer processes to ensure members receive updates when agenda attachments change after an initial posting. The committee noted the Open Meetings Acts posting requirement (discussed during the meeting as a 48-hour minimum) and said staff would continue using electronic notices when attachments are added.

- Motion practice (table vs. postpone): Members asked that the draft align with Roberts Rules and local practice: a motion to table typically saves an item for later without specifying a return date and can be used to set aside a matter for a more pressing item, while a motion to postpone usually requires a specified return date. The committee agreed to clarify those distinctions in the draft ordinance to reduce procedural confusion at board meetings.

The committee moved the Title I draft forward to the County Executive committee for the executives review and signaled that remaining chapters will be circulated in batches. Members and counsel said they will continue to circulate strikeout-and-addition drafts to committee members before future meetings and that staff will send attachments and updates when agendas change.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn.