Joliet Junior College Trustee Challenges Appointment Process

Joliet Junior College | August 3, 2026

Article Summary: A trustee who was not a member of the ad hoc committee that screened trustee applicants challenged the committee’s formation and the timing of the oath of office at the Aug. 3 special meeting, citing Board Policy 01.27.00. The board’s legal counsel disagreed, and the board proceeded to seat Tim Bradley.

Appointment Process Dispute Key Points:

A trustee cited Board Policy 01.27.00, arguing committee findings or recommendations must be reported at a regular board meeting and that the oath should not be administered at a special meeting.

The same trustee described the ad hoc committee as “self-created,” said the board learned of it only on July 29, and said the board was never told how 17 applicants were narrowed to five.

Legal counsel said the committee made no recommendations and had only selected candidates for the full board to interview.

The board proceeded over the objection after a point of order, and Trustee Alicia Morales delivered the ad hoc committee’s report in open session.

JOLIET — The Joliet Junior College Board of Trustees’ appointment of a new trustee on Monday, Aug. 3, 2026, drew a procedural challenge from a trustee who was not seated on the ad hoc committee that screened applicants, delaying the oath of office by several minutes and prompting an on-the-record disagreement with the board’s attorney.

The objection came after the board voted 4-1 to appoint Tim Bradley to the seat left vacant by the resignation of former Chairman James Budzinski, and just before Secretary Elaine Bottomley was to administer the oath.

“Can I ask a question before we do that though?” the trustee said. “I’m looking at policy 01.27.00, which identifies that the committee findings or recommendations shall be reported at a regular board meeting.” The trustee said the oath should be taken at a regular meeting rather than at the special meeting.

Told that the body in session was the full board and not a committee, the trustee responded that the matter had nonetheless originated in committee — and questioned how that committee came to exist.

“This came out of a committee that was self-created that we didn’t know about,” the trustee said. “The board didn’t know about that, all of a sudden popped up on July 29th. We didn’t know about it.”

The trustee went on to object that the board had been divided in two by the committee’s membership: “The board of three was on this committee and the board of the other three did not have any ability to be on that committee. So the board was split, and the board never heard anything of the rules and regulations of going from 17 people, 17 candidates, down to five.”

The board’s legal counsel, who served as parliamentarian for the meeting under Board Policy 01.03.00, rejected the reading of the policy. “Well, I disagree with you,” he said. “The committee didn’t make any recommendations. The committee selected five candidates to be interviewed by the board. The board has done those interviews, and now the board has made a decision.”

Another trustee then raised a point of order: “We have a full board here, and we are at a special committee meeting, and I believe we can move forward with taking the oath.”

At counsel’s suggestion, Morales delivered the ad hoc committee’s report in open session before the oath was administered. She said the committee was formed to select final candidates “so that we’re not wasting people’s time,” that five finalists were chosen, that one withdrew, and that the board interviewed four candidates. The committee consisted of Garcia Guillen, Morales, Bottomley and Student Trustee Byron McCullum.

Pressed on the screening method, Morales was asked whether the committee had used a rubric on each of the 17 candidates. “That was emailed to all of us,” she said. “Yes, the rubric.” The questioning trustee replied, “I didn’t see any questions other than they seem very subjective.”

Garcia Guillen moved the meeting back to the agenda item. “I do want to bring us back to the item that we have in front of us,” she said. “That is item number nine, administration of oath of office.” Bottomley then swore Bradley in.

The record of the meeting contains an unresolved tension on the committee’s role. Counsel said the committee made no recommendations; minutes earlier, Morales had voted against a competing nomination on the ground that “this person was not recommended and is not here present nor were they interviewed.” Neither the agenda nor the minutes contains the text of Board Policy 01.27.00, the ad hoc committee’s charge, or the scoring rubric Morales described.

The special meeting was the board’s first opportunity to act on the vacancy created by Budzinski’s resignation, which also left the chairmanship open. The board elected Garcia Guillen chair earlier in the same meeting and failed six consecutive votes to fill the resulting vice chair vacancy.