Kankakee County Township Supervisor Indicted

A press release from the U.S. Attorney in Springfield:


Springfield, Ill. – A federal grand jury today returned an indictment that charges Leon Eddie Mondy, former acting Pembroke Township Supervisor, with defrauding township accounts of more than $60,000 from August 2012 to May 2013.

Mondy will be issued a summons to appear in federal court in Urbana for arraignment on a date to be determined by the U.S. Clerk of the Court.

The indictment charges Mondy, 35, of St. Anne, Ill., with one count of wire fraud.

According to the indictment, as acting Pembroke Township Supervisor, Mondy was a signatory and had access to multiple bank accounts that held township funds.

The indictment alleges that Mondy made cash withdrawals of township funds under the false pretense that the funds would be used for the benefit of Pembroke Township.

In fact, the indictment alleges Mondy used the funds for his personal benefit, such as for gambling.

Mondy allegedly withdrew cash from various Pembroke Township accounts, such as the Insurance Fund, Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, Water Debt Fund, Community Center Fund, and the Senior Nutrition Fund.

The charge is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Eugene L. Miller.

If convicted, the offense of wire fraud carries a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in
prison and fines of up to $250,000.

Members of the public are reminded that an indictment is merely an accusation; the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

= = = = =
This is a township with a predominately Afro-American population. Governor Rod Blagojevich selected the area for his own anti-poverty pilot project. It is my belief that Blagojevich had Presidential ambitions at the time. He pumped all sorts of resources into the township.


Kankakee County Township Supervisor Indicted — 2 Comments

  1. This is a huge issue for all County citizens, moral and fiscal.

    1. Throwing local residents to wolves: devastation of property value contiguous to quality-of-life blight inducement.

    There are emission remediation costs to be considered, EPA inadequacy to police amount of peaker plant usage, inadequacy of fines for peaker plant overuse in relation to costs related to profits generated by peaker plant ‘overuse’.

    And any de minimus fines go to EPA, not County or homeowners. (Put another way, it pays more for the peaker plant to violate zoning restrictions and pay the fines (if anyone can afford to document the overuse and enforce such fines) than it does to operate within zoning guidelines.)

    When factoring in any property taxes to be paid by peaker plant, County MUST factor in LOWERED property tax revenues due to home value devaluation.

    Home devaluation also results in lower spending by homeowners: as home resale value goes lower, investment of home upkeep and capital investment becomes irrational. People would be disinclined to spend money with local carpenters, painters, roofers, landscapers, etc..

    As property tax RATES (tax amount/divided by home value) rise, fewer new citizens find it attractive to locate in this County.

    2. WATER: Board must look at water usage replacement value.

    If an area is rich in say, diamonds (Like South Africa) they may be tempted to ‘sell’ diamond harvesting rights for lower than world-market value.

    If McHenry County has more water than it currently needs (because few new residents would want to locate where property tax rate per year, every year, are 3.67% of property value and rising), it might be tempting to view water as a cheap available resource which can be sold at Pennies when the World market values water in Dollars.

    County elected officials have a moral obligation to maximize the value of indigenous local resources.

    If “public -private partnership” is proposed, how much is being subsidized by “public” taxpayers?

    What happened when new capacity is no longer profitable to the private user, and they disassociate from responsibility for any share of costs of new capacity?

    Restated: the public taxpayer will be paying in real tax dollars, AND soft-dollar risk of running out of usable drinking water, for the guaranteed profits of a private company.

    3. RISKS/REWARDS. There seems to be little comprehension by Board that there is ZERO benefit to local users of electricity when a power production plant is built, unless there is low voltage step-down facility in conjunction.

    Electricity is traded, long distance across the grid, and if any Board Member votes YES OR NO on this project without reviewing a history of Enron energy traders…shame on them.

    4. What local benefits might accrue?


    I understand peaker plants are largely automated and switching them on and off is in the control of non-local grid managers.


    I understand that tax breaks are accorded ‘utility companies’ and if Board members do not compare the tax revenue of utility versus the lost tax revenue of human citizens foreclosed or fleeing due to property value devastation…shame on Board members.


    What are replacement cost of water to citizens’ properties when aquifers and private wells dry up?

    Even if County can shirk responsibility and private citizens must pay for this on their own (and see their property value go down even more to reflect that new expense) the property tax collectability based on lower equalized assessed value will go down. This means existing (surviving) homeowners will face tax rate increases to subsidize the effects of this for-profit private enterprise’s water usage.

    Shame on any Board Member who does so little research that they fail to anticipate these obvious predictable results, and fails to address these risk and costs with which they will burden current citizens.

Leave a Reply

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