Linda Moore Asks Judge Caldwell to Approve John Nelson as Grafton Township Attorney

At the last meeting of the Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore asked her adversaries on the Township Board to approve the man whose arguments unseated their choice for Township Attorney, Keri Lyn Krafthefer, in Judge Michael Caldwell’s court.

Attorney John Nelson can been seen sitting in the middle of the front row in this photo of the last Grafton Township meeting.

To no one’s surprise the services of Attorney Nelson were summarily rejected on a 4-1 vote.

“Conflict” was the word used to explain the rejection. Moore was asked to bring three recommendations from among whom the Township Trustees would chose.

At that same meeting unpaid for advice was given by an Ancel Glink attorney that led the Trustees to knock all of the citizen-initiated resolutions off the agenda of Annual Town Meeting.

The provision of that advice led to negative comments from Judge Caldwell (“They’re not going to sneak around behind the Court’s order …”) and a motion to expand the prohibition of legal advice from Ancel Glink beyond Krafthefer.

After the meeting, Nelson brought up the subject in Judge Caldwell’s court and the jurist said,

“The issue is, is there an articulable reason for not approving you.”

A motion filed last Friday may lead to an answer to that question.

Moore contends that Nelson’s approval was “unreasonably withheld.”

“Further, Supervisor Moore believes outside of conflict the Trustees can offer no articulable reason to deny consent and confirmation of Attorney Nelson as Grafton Town Attorney.”

You can read the motion below. Click to enlarge any page.


Linda Moore Asks Judge Caldwell to Approve John Nelson as Grafton Township Attorney — 10 Comments

  1. Slightly off topic.

    Cal, can you please report on the pros and cons of Grafton paying $700K in one lump sum vs. two or three payments. What is the upside, etc.? Does the township have $700K right now? Will the proposed rule allowing electors to personally sue elected officials ever hold up in court? Who would run for affice if this new rule passes? thanks in advance.

  2. There is no particular legal advantage to the one payment vs the two or three. It is merely what the electors asked for last year at the open meeting and, by law, this directive is to be respected. This year, due to financial issues, the electors are going to be asked to expand the payout to a more manageable time frame. This would allow a legal payout without borrowing to achieve the end.

    The Township Official is no different from any other governmental official. At all levels of government one may sue their representatives. There are legal hoops to jump through to do this, it is an incredibly high threshold to meet to proceed and the elected official has the benefit of defending with public dollars so the suits die on the vine in most cases. Elected officials need to be able to proceed with doing their jobs free of the fear of frivilous legal reprisal just as a prosecutor must be free to execute the duties of their office with due care and vigor without the fear of the same. Each level of government is afforded these protections and making a rule against these provisions which will stand the legal litmus test is highly unlikely.

    The bottom line is Grafton Township has no representation right now as the entire business of the township is now arbitrated by one jurist. Judge Caldwell is a good man of excellent moral fiber and deep legal knowledge. This appreciation for his qualities does not mean he is a good representative of The People of Grafton. We elected people to do this and each and every one of them is abrogating the duties of their office by allowing the judiciary to overrun the executive and legislative branches duly elected. This weakness of knowledge and application of duty is the very reason the whole lot should go. It is also the reason The People should show up to the next meeting en masse to make their voices heard over the din of legal wrangling.

  3. Preist, the township is already illegally borrowing $700,000 it does not need. Since August 2008 the township has held $611,000 in its accounts and paid to date over $80,000 interest for this “priviledge.” Check to view the township bank statements. How is this payoff not manageable?

  4. Grafton Res – How about telling us “How this payoff IS manageable?”

    Pros/Cons, benefits, etc.?

  5. I suspect the good judge will smack the trustees hard for wasting the Court’s time with their refusal to appoint Moore’s choice of attorney. They’d better show up with a good reason. Maybe the judge will throw each of them in the clink for 2-3 days to knock some sense into their heads.

    The Supervisor is the CEO of the Township. The trustees don’t like that. They want their way, only they can’t take their marbles and go home.

    Why would Ancel Glink be providing pro bono advice to the trustees? What part of “You’re Fired!” do they not understand?

    This court hearing ought to be worth the time to attend.

  6. Gee, I wonder why the trustees are opposed to the appointment of Nelson as the township attorney….could it be because he’s been involved in the lawsuits against the trustees?

    DUH! Seriously, Grafton Township is such a joke now! Is there not another attorney somewhere that could be appointed in place of either Nelson or Ancel Glink or are they the only two attorneys available. Get over it, pick someone who has no history with Grafton and maybe then things can move forward.

  7. How about the fact that voter from Grafton don’t want Nelson as an attorney due to a conflict of interest because he is suing us? If Judge Caldwell appoints him, he is disenfrancizing us.

  8. So, the Trustees refusing to pay back the $600 or 700 K loan after being instructed to do so by the electors had ? nothing ? to do with the fact they were trying to purchase a building in town and then fix it up so they could still press a building on the Taxpayers? I mean the first multi-million dollar building project was taken down by the Electors and presumably that ticked off the Trustees.

    Then they hired a person to take over the Supervisor’s role – what word was it that Caldwell used? Was it to usurp? Well anyway that person was apparently out there looking for a building….that loan payback that didn’t happen…..would have come in handy toward its purchase or renovation.

    Hmmm…here’s an idea – pay back the loan and stop the game playing.

  9. Although I am not privy to the financials, as no one is in Grafton Township, I suspect the monies borrowed(illegally) to pay for the building project have now been spent in lawsuits, countersuits and wasting the township dollars in painful argument over issues resolved in blood a few years back. Grafton is going to be paying off the folly of the current Supervisor and Trustees for many years to come. Unwinding the deal for the building may now be small potatoes compared to the upending of the Separation of Powers and our representative democracy here in the Township.

    No attorney’s want to touch the third rail which is Grafton Township today. Once a new Supervisor and Board are voted in there are at least two very qualified and experienced attorneys willing to take the mantle of Township Attorney. Under the current regime Mr. Nelson has, on behalf of Ms. Moore as Supervisor, reached out to attorneys and firms all over northern Illinois and has been declined every step of the way. The only legal eagles willing to step into this situation are the two who have been a part of the damage to the Township: Ancel Glink and Mr. Nelson. For some to feel hiring one of these two firms is an awful idea for the citizens of Grafton seems to have some deep evidence of late. I would agree with this assessment.

    God help me Gus, I agree with you. Put these folks in The Octagon or a jail cell until they work it out without more money being spent(I checked and no pigs are flying my friend).

    Until the financial situation is transparent and online for all to see and until there are responsible individuals willing to work together for the better future of Grafton Township I’m afraid all us citizens have is our once a year meeting to voice our public displeasure at the complete mismanagement of this branch of government, top to bottom. Once again, I hope to see you all there.

  10. For Dee – Another one of your conspiracy theories? The trustees ARE NOT refusing to pay back the loan as directed by the electors. You are making this up. Grafton Trustee Barb Murphy writes on HN: “the unwind was done and we now have an intergovernmental agreement with the Road District to pay back in three installments.” SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? Jack is OK with being paid back in three (3) payments. There is an agreement to that effect. There was/is no problem until Linda made it a problem. “Let’s get my buddies undies in a bundle.” Once again “Great job Brownie, er I mean Linda!”

    Originally Posted on HN by wrkngmom2
    I have a question! I am not an accountant and never claim to be but when i was looking at the Balance Sheet for April 2010 to March 2011 on Linda’s website the expenses exceed the income. Income was 1,087,640.69 and expenses showed 1,693,986.25. Attorney Fees were 200,000 + (sorry I didn’t write that number down before posting here). She is saying that the payment to the road district can be made in one lump sum) HOW!!!!! If that is done there will not be enough money left to run the township. Now these figures have not been audited so we don’t know if they are correct or not but It is still a negative balance. Am I missing something? You can see the financial info on her website.” So I ask again, How will this one payment move NOT bankrupt the township (and what’s the point)? There is an already in place to make three (3) payments.

    Trustee Barb Murphy responds on HN: “At least you understand now why the trustees are having such a hard time figuring anything out. Nothing jives. In the matter of the pay back we came up with a perfectly sound idea to do it in installments so as to not make the township suffer anymore. The road commissioner is also in agreement with this. At the last years annual meeting it was voted on to do the unwind and pay back, however, it was not specified that it was to be done in one lump sum or over payments and no time limit was ever put on it. So, the unwind was done and we now have an intergovernmental agreement with the Road District to pay back in three installments.

    Where is the outrage over Linda pi$$-poor record keeping? Cal, why aren’t you asking the questions?

    Aileen – How was it published . . . Your act has truly gotten old.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *