What began as a quiet clause in a city contract has now escalated into a full-scale political and legal standoff—one that has landed in court, divided elected officials, and forced West Chicago residents to confront a larger question: who controls City Hall—and at what cost?
At the center of the conflict is former City Administrator Michael Guttman, whose employment contract expired on April 30, 2025. Despite that expiration, Guttman continues to report to work—refusing to step aside—even after newly elected Mayor Dan Bovey appointed an interim replacement.
This unprecedented standoff has led the City of West Chicago and Mayor Bovey, acting in his official capacity, to file a declaratory judgment complaint in DuPage County Circuit Court (Case No. 2025 CH 93). The suit seeks a formal ruling that the contracts of both Guttman and former City Attorney Pat Bond are no longer valid. The city is also requesting a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prohibit Guttman from continuing to act in an official capacity.
At the hearing on Thursday, May 28 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2700 at the DuPage County Courthouse, interim city attorney, Jeff Jacobsen requested a change of judge over the matter. Further delaying the oversight decision.
The May 5 Maneuver
The legal action stems from a resolution quietly introduced on May 5, 2025—the very night Bovey was sworn into office. Labeled Resolution 25-R-0039, it attempted to “affirm” Guttman’s continued employment under the same terms and conditions as his previous agreement. However, the resolution was signed not by Bovey, but by outgoing Mayor Ruben Pineda, whose term had already ended.
This maneuver hinged on a renewal clause in Guttman’s contract stating that unless the city gave written notice of termination 120 days before expiration, the contract would automatically extend for another four years. However, that clause appears to conflict directly with Section 2-121 of the West Chicago Municipal Code, which limits administrator contracts to the term of the sitting mayor and requires reappointment by the newly seated administration.
Bovey struck the resolution from the agenda—but Guttman never left.
The Financial Picture: Salaries, Severance, and Disparity
The attempt to quietly extend Guttman’s contract wasn’t just a legal misstep—it also obscured the true cost of his compensation.
According to city data, Guttman received $278,115 in total compensation in 2023, which includes a $650 monthly car allowance. In stark contrast, West Chicago’s mayor was paid just $15,000.
When compared to 11 similar municipalities, Guttman was the highest-paid city administrator in the region. West Chicago’s overall administrative payroll outpaced the regional average by 16.5%, based on benchmarking data that examined compensation for comparable roles in surrounding communities.
In a community where a significant portion of the population lives at or below the poverty line, many residents have questioned whether such a compensation package—paired with an ironclad severance clause—is in the city’s best interest.
A City in Contrast
The compensation disparity also highlights a deeper issue: economic inequality between city leadership and the residents they serve.
According to U.S. Census data, over 11% of West Chicago residents live below the poverty line, and many others are low-income or working-class. The city’s median household income is significantly lower than surrounding towns, making six-figure salaries at the top of City Hall appear especially out of step with the broader community.
One budget document from the City shows that Guttman’s department oversaw revenue from community development activities that ranged between $1.3 million and $2.7 million in a single year, rivaling the city’s $2.8 million in total income tax revenue. While some argue this reflects productivity, others see it as a sign that the city has grown top-heavy—prioritizing high-level compensation over direct service and affordability for residents.
Contract Clauses Raise Eyebrows
As outlined in Part 1 of this series, Guttman’s contract allegedly includes a number of unusually favorable provisions:
- An automatic 4-year renewal unless canceled with at least 120 days’ notice.
- A severance guarantee that reportedly awards the greater of either the remaining contract term or 12 months of full salary and benefits—paid monthly, even if he is no longer employed.
- A “constructive termination” clause that may entitle him to severance if he resigns in response to certain administrative or policy changes.
- Indemnification language suggesting the city must cover legal fees and damages unless misconduct is proven to be “willful or wanton.”
- A clause stating that his salary may never be reduced under any circumstances, even in the event of citywide budget cuts, staff layoffs, or financial emergencies—it may only be increased, never decreased.
In addition, Guttman allegedly receives a $700 monthly car allowance, weekly fuel payments for a personal vehicle, and has reportedly accrued approximately six months of vacation time—benefits that, if cashed out, could total a substantial payout upon his departure.
Combined with his estimated $278,000 annual salary, these contractual perks have raised serious questions among residents and observers about how such an agreement was negotiated, why it was positioned for renewal in the final days of the outgoing administration, and what accountability measures—if any—were in place during its approval process.
To review the contract yourself, it begins on page 3 of the May 5, 2025 City Council packet, available here:
👉 https://westchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/05.05.25.Packet.City-Council.pdf
One longtime West Chicago business owner, who asked to remain anonymous, said, “Everyone I’ve shown this contract to is absolutely astounded.” They added, “Yet the previous administration appeared ready to push it through without hesitation, just days before leaving office.”
What Happens Next?
Whether the ongoing legal negotiations result in Guttman’s exit, a settlement, or a prolonged standoff remains to be seen. All eyes are now on the June 2, 2025 City Council meeting, where public attention is expected to be high and tensions may surface.[/caption]
