No gold watch for ex-village manager
We saw it coming. We really did.
When Hinsdale officials set out to prevent the Garfield project by making everything hinge on a single decision by a single individual, we figured Bo Proczko’s job was in jeopardy.
We’re not trying to sound smug. The overwhelming emotion we feel is sorrow that Proczko has such an ignominious end to his 25 years in the Hinsdale community. This is a man respected enough to have been promoted to village manager by Bill Whitney, the village president two terms ago, a man whose firing has raised the ire of George Faulstich, the past village president.
In the last several months, his reputation has become tarnished as he has had to say at public hearings that village staff wrongly thought the Garfield project met the zoning code. We’re not sure how this mistake was made or what role he played in it, but the debacle is representative of all the bizarre events connected to the Garfield project. Being fired just cemented Proczko’s role as the top scapegoat in the matter.
But even though his removal from his position – and the clandestine air surrounding it – reflects poorly on him, it also reflects poorly on the ones who did the removing.
Village President Michael Woerner refuses to give any sort of explanation for Proczko’s firing, saying officials must keep quiet about personnel issues. After weeks of a suspicious vacation and a few days of unpaid leave, Proczko was “terminated” last month after a closed session.
Employees should understandably keep certain aspects of hiring and firing confidential. The secrecy in this particular situation, though, isn’t warranted. Taxpayers have a right to know the reasoning for, or at least some information about, a public employee’s firing. Residents especially deserve answers in a community where the current village president has vowed to run an open environment.
We suspect Woerner, and the six trustees who agreed to Proczko’s firing, wanted the village manager gone long before the zoning board of appeals began its review of the approval process for the Garfield project. Perhaps they think firing Proczko before an outcome is reached will lessen our suspicion that the two are connected. It’s not working.
For Proczko’s replacement, Woerner says the board wants a person who will follow the will of the community rather than a personal agenda. If trustee’s decision to strip Proczko of his power to grant extensions for commercial developments is any indication, they want a village manager who follows the lead of the board. And as they go along, they are happily rewriting parts of the village code to support their vision.
New boards wanting a new administration is a practice gaining in popularity. Elections are turning into occupational hazards for village employees. These boards aren’t too concerned their choices affect continuity in village government. In fact, Woerner says one of the downsides of a longtime village manager is a too-powerful staff.
Trustees need to be careful about the messages they’re sending. If you come to work here, we might fire you. If you come to develop here, we might try to stop you.
Meanwhile, the assault against Proczko continues as the zoning board still deliberates on whether he acted improperly in granting approval for the much-dreaded – at least among officials – Garfield project. As we said before, what a sad way to end a 25-year career.