You leave McHenry County for a day and a half and it takes an hour to get caught up on what happened politically.

The Northwest Herald’s uber-Editor Chris Krug announces in his column that Lou Bianchi’s 2008 Republican primary opponent Dan Regna—you remember, the one put up by then-McHenry County Republican Central Committee Chairman Bill LeFew, Sheriff Keith Nygren and others who preferred to remain nameless—would not run for that office again.

Regna filed one of two petitions considered by then-Associate Judge Gordon Graham requesting that a Special Prosecutor be named to probe Bianchi’s use of public funds for campaign purposes.

The other petition, filed by former employee Amy Dalby, resulted in the indictments and trials which were so weak that Judge Joseph McGraw dismissed them without the Defense attorney’s having to put on any evidence.

I guess Krug didn’t ask if Regna were considering running for anything else, so we don’t know if other ambitions exist foe 2012.

Then there is an article about Sheriff Nygren’s being upset about Assistant State’s Attorney Don Leist being replaced by Special Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Caldwell.

I have watched Leist’s delaying tactics in hearing after hearing after hearing.

Although I don’t know why Leist has been replaced, there is that old saying, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Nygren had $15,250 in his campaign fund at the end of June, surely enough to hire his own attorney, if he is dissatisfied with Bianchi’s selections.

However, take a look at how Nygren used his campaign fund during April, May and June (expenditures are in chronological order and only those of $150 or more had to be listed):

• $83.61 – 4/19/2011, A T & T – Cingular Service, Monthly charge for campaign cell phone
  

  Keith Nygren

• $313.79 – 4/19/2011, A T & T Wireless (Store C124), Upgrade of campaign cell phones
• $250 – 4/19/2011, Duke University For Brain Cancer C/O M.Robison, 5820 Harbour Preserve Circle
  Cape Coral, FL
• $600 – 6/16/2011, Public relations, Harvard Milk Day
• $200, 4/19/2011, Publi[c] relations, McHenry Co. Prayer Breakfast Committee
• $103 – 5/2/2011, Reimburse out of pocket cost of 5 campaign meals
• $200 – 5/4/11, Public Relations, Police Benevolent Protective #192, Harvard
• $81.41 – 5/4/2011, A T & T – Cingular Service, Monthly charge for campaign cell phone
• $151 – 6/6/11, Reimburse out of pocket cost of 6campaign meals
• $98.92 – 6/6/2011, A T & T – Cingular Service, Monthly charge for campaign cell phone
• $10 – 6/6/11, Reimburse out of pocket cost of raffle tickets
• $15 – 6/6/11, Reimburse out of pocket cost of donation to Duke Brain Tumor Ctr.

An additional $1,125.37 was spent during the three months which was not revealed.

Finally, what can one say about an editorial urging the Sheriff to appeal Zane Seipler’s third ruling that he should get his job back as Deputy Sheriff?

Take Chance, Appeal Again

If this were so important to the Northwest Herald editorial guys (and gals?), why did take them from Thursday, when the decision was posted by the 2nd Appellate Court, until mid-Monday to run a story?  (Anyone know where in the paper it was placed?  Surely not on the front page, right?)

Could it have anything to do with its fawning front page story the Wednesday before the Seipler decision reporting that Undersheriff Andy Zinke announcing his candidacy for Sheriff more three years before the next regularly scheduled election?

And the first sentence of the editorial:

“Zane Seipler has no business working for the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office.”

Is the Northwest Herald so intent upon making sure that Zane Seipler (whom I supported in my precinct, which he won) will not run for Sheriff against its chosen one that the hatchet job begins  well over two years before the next primary election (assuming Nygren is well enough to stay in office–he told the NWH he planned to serve out his term if his health was not an issue)?

The editorial wants readers to believe it is summarizing the case.  Compare it to this story I wrote.

No where in the editorial do you get a clue that the Justices wrote,

“We find the determination that there was no just cause to terminate Seipler and that the appropriate remedy was a three-day suspension…”

Neither is there a mention that the Northwest Herald finds the behavior of Deputy Jennifer Asplund, who  did  the same thing Zane Seipler did (or worse), but had only received a three-day suspension, has “no business working for the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office.”  That was in the decision.

But, inconvenient facts are best ignored in editorials, I guess.

Then, the NWH complains that some web site whose founder listed Seipler’s email address as a secondary email address and posted “confidential” information was posted be Seipler.

I could list Chris Krug’s email address as a secondary contact point for McHenry County Blog, but that would not make him responsible for anything published here.  (And, yes, we do agree on a number of issues.)

While criticizing

• Seipler for trying to get a Special Prosecutor (not one that would be paid exorbitant fees as Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen were, but one supplied for a fee already paid to the Illinois Appellate Prosecutor’s Office) and
• Seipler’s Federal civil rights case against Nygren for wrongful termination,

the NWH Editorial Board urges an appeal or the 2nd Appellate Court decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.

I guess no one at the NW Herald thought the following, from my original article, meant much:

The higher court noted that the arbitrator had made that recommendation.

The decision points out that “judicial review of an arbitral award is extremely limited,” because the statute’s intent was  “to provide finality for labor disputes submitted to arbitration…The Act contemplates judicial disturbance of an award only in instances of fraud, corruption, partiality, misconduct, mistake, or failure to submit the question to arbitration.”

“Thus, a court is duty bound to enforce a labor arbitration award if the arbitrator acts within the scope of his or her authority and the award draws its essence from the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement,” the order notes in quoting a previous case.

Goodness knows I am not an attorney, but that sounds like pretty strong language to me.

And, I would point out union Democrats put the majority of the Illinois Supreme Court in office

You can read the entire decision here.