The spokesman for the village of Oak Park dropped an 898-word statement in Wednesday Journal’s inbox, Monday afternoon. The critical sentence is the very first one. “The village of Oak Park has issued the following statement in the interest of transparency for its residents, members of the Oak Park Police Department and other stakeholders.”
That’s what Dan Yopchick, the spokesperson, sent us in response to our reporter’s efforts to reach Police Chief Shatonya Johnson for her response to Brendan Heffernan’s reporting that the police union had recently taken a no-confidence vote in her leadership.
Yopchick, likely following the direction of Village Manager Kevin Jackson, told us that the chief would not be available for an interview with the local paper.
This, friends, is the new reality of our efforts to cover village hall. We are not permitted to talk to department heads.
Just in the past two weeks the Journal has attempted to speak with the police chief about the no-confidence vote, the village attorney and the village engineer about a potential hangup in the water and sewer project on Oak Park Avenue, and calls placed to the head of public health about the disintegration of West Sub were not returned.
This is what our village leaders describe as being in the “interest of transparency.”
What nonsense. This is nothing like transparency.
Transparency is allowing well-trained, well-compensated village officials to take questions from the local paper. Blocking that access makes the manager seem controlling and the department heads toothless.
What followed was 870 words of political cover with a wordy statement attributed to “the village,” a few words from Jackson and then a statement attributed to Chief Johnson.
There is nothing in the statements that surprises or feels disingenuous. Yopchick works the line between talking up Johnson and her accomplishments and ongoing challenges while also not dissing the rank-and-file officers who took a vote that actively undercuts their leader.
Jackson said, “We are proud to have her leading the Oak Park Police Department, and that support is unwavering.”
He could have said that to our reporter but that would require answering the follow up questions that are the heart of actual reporting.
The statement attributed to Chief Johnson reads mostly as boilerplate. “Profound honor,” “constructive, good-faith dialogue,” “steady leadership, transparency and accountability as we move forward.”
All of this dodgy effort by the village manager to turn the Journal into a transcription service undermines the police chief. She has a story to tell and she is perfectly capable of telling it. She has a very tough job. She’s made progress on critical issues, such as alternative policing strategies, headway toward getting the cops out of the dank and dangerous basement of village hall. Refilling the depleted ranks of officers has been a nearly impossible task, though some progress has been made. Johnson most certainly feels in a bind between the progressive policing strategies of the village board and the concerns of her officers. Like those officers, Johnson too must feel at times, a lack of support from elected officials. That is the nature of policing in this fraught moment.
Be certain the Journal is not backing off from our reporting work. We’ll find ways to tell these stories even as the village government works to shut off access.
