Provenzano Picks Up $5,000

Vince Foglia

Vince Foglia

Nick Provenzano

Nick Provenzano

One of the sponsors of McHenry County Board member Nick Provenzano’s Plum Garden fundraiser on Monday, February 8th is Vince Foglia.

Provenzano reports to the Illinois State Board of Elections that Foglia has donated $5,000 to his campaign.


Provenzano Picks Up $5,000 — 9 Comments

  1. This comment is response to Mr. Provenzano’s comment to me in the blog entitled “Nick Provenzano Sets Fundraiser for Chinese New Year” posted on January 30, 2016.

    Regarding, Valley Hi and the accumulation of monies totaling more than 41 Million Dollars in a liquid account.

    Nick as I understand your comment, you acknowledge you were aware of excess levying at Valley Hi and the slush fund being accumulated but believed you were helpless as a board member until this year when your MCBOT majority granted taxpayers a 1 year tax abatement on Valley Hi for year 2016.

    I find it very troubling that you and other MCBOT were aware of this massive accumulation of taxpayer dollars but never asked the question of each other, other MCBOT members or counsel assigned to MCBOT whether accumulation of taxpayer dollars in the “Tens of Millions of Dollars” at Valley Hi was legal or not?

    Because had this simple and obvious question been asked by you or the two lawyers now running for Chair of MCBOT, all of you would have discovered many years ago, this issue at Valley Hi was no longer one of “legislation” but one of “legality”.

    It defies reason that McHenry County has 23 board members and not one inquired as to the legal standard regarding acceptable levels of accumulation of taxpayer funds derived from a levy.

    Rather when it came to Valley Hi, MCBOT continued to act with impunity against the people MCBOT was obligated to serve all the while taking the salary and full time benefits paid for by the same taxpayers.

    Had any of the lawyers or other members on MCBOT done minimal due diligence in the form of legal research they would have learned legal limitations on accumulation of taxpayer funds are between 1x or 2x necessary to operate the government entity like Valley Hi.

    MCBOT was acting “ultra vires” in the ongoing levying for Valley Hi totaling more than 35 Million Dollars or more than 7x the funds necessary to operate Valley Hi on annual basis.

    In support of my contention, on the issue of appropriate levy, the Illinois Supreme Court in People ex re Harding v. C&N.W Ry Co., 413 Ill. 93 (1952) opined:

    “Where a balance is on hand amounting to a little less than 2 years requirements, as established by recent prior experience, a levy is unnecessary. Levies which result in an unnecessary accumulation of funds are invalid.”

    (People ex rel. Toman v. Grendada Apartment Hotel Corp., 36 Ill. 41).

    Further, the Illinois Appellate Court in People ex rel. Kelly v B&O.R. Co., 376 Ill 393 held:

    “In levying to meet the requirements of expenditures the amount of money on hand and in the process of collection should be considered. The unnecessary accumulation of money in the public treasury is unjust to the people and it is against public policy of law to raise taxes faster than they are likely to be needed. The policy of the law is that no taxing district shall be permitted to accumulate unnecessary surplus from taxes collected but should confine their levies to the amount actually needed to be determined annually.”

    It is well settled under Illinois law that levies which result in unnecessary accumulation of funds are invalid. People ex rel. Reeves v. Bell, 309 Ill. 387.

    They are illegal and void. (See People ex rel Brenza v Fleetwood, 413 Ill. 530 at p. 551; People ex rel. Toman v Signode Steel Strapping Co., 380 Ill. 633).

    In the recent case of People ex rel Toynton v. Commonwealth Edison Company, 285 Ill.App.3d 357 (1996) the Illinois Appellate Court held:

    “Based on our review of applicable case law, we do not agree with the argument that a taxpayer cannot meet its burden of showing an excess accumulation unless the accumulation is at least 2.84 times the average annual expenditure . . . We conclude that a tax objector can meet is burden to show excessive accumulation by presenting evidence that the accumulation in the fund exceeds two or three times the annual expenditures for the fund.”

    The primary and most important job of MCBOT is to prepare a budget and levy based upon that budget or otherwise stated obtain funds from taxpayer necessary to operate government on an annual basis; nothing more, nothing less.

    I am astonished when I ran for MCBOT in 2013 not only were many incumbent MCBOT unaware of the tax revenue accumulations at Valley Hi ($40 Million Dollars) but when I read responses by candidates at recent forums they still do not get it.

    Not one said, IT IS ILLEGAL.

    Your response to me talks only about the legislative hurdles you faced but speaks nothing about the obvious legal question which should have been asked and researched.

    As a McHenry County taxpayer this unacceptable and I hope others who choose to review this issue think the same and vote all of you out.

    I find the abatement an insult to McHenry County taxpayers as mere “crumbs” from the sandwich they stole from us through abuse of their compulsory taxing powers.

    I do not want to belabor the point that then and now McHenry County has too many incompetent people levying and managing our taxpayer dollars.

    But I will say to readers that this lack of competency will continue as long as we the voters continue to accept and install candidates offered to us from the political teams of “Miller” and “Walsh”.

    I am tired of reading blogs telling me how “hard” MCBOT are working but rather see how they are working “smart”.

    Based upon this utter disregard for the legal rights of the McHenry County taxpayer, I believe both candidates running for MCBOT Chairman are unqualified and encourage the electorate to leave this slot blank.

    To my knowledge, neither candidate for MCBOT Chairman has adequately informed the electorate why he did not make any effort to stop the abuse.

    It appears nowhere in their campaign literature as if this $40 Million debacle does not exist.

    I believe, Illinois Courts would agree, MCBOT recent decision to abate levy for Valley Hi for year 2016 falls woefully short of righting this wrong.

    The only dignified course of action at this time is for the MCBOT to sue itself and Valley Hi in Chancery Court for declaratory relief and seek imposition of constructive trust on these excess Valley Hi funds with request for appointment of a receiver to determine how these funds will be returned to the McHenry County taxpayer illegally assessed.

    On a different note, it is time, we the McHenry County taxpayer, find and elect future board members based upon “independence”, “intelligence” and “experience” in other words, credentials rather than continue to permit the extremes to select candidates for us.

    It is time to move away from the team politics toward competent candidates who can build a consensus based upon best practices.

    We should not accept candidates simply because he or she paid his or her dues to one of these political teams.

    Contrary to one of the political team leaders, “anger” will not fix government but finding and electing intelligent people possessing the proper skill set.

  2. People on boards across the county will need to start voting their consciences.

    There will be consequences following poor decisions, weak excuses and go along votes.

    When you’re an elected official, you are responsible for how you vote, and who you endorse, period.

    People are more aware than ever, and lets hope it stays this way!

    Boards don’t vote as a body.

    Each board member has a voice and obligation to vote representing their constituents.

    A lot of people who are in office need a course on how govt works!

    Just because they’re an elected official doesn’t mean they know how to conduct themselves for better govt.

    Those of us who are watching people who are Candidates ‘play politics’ will pay for their absentee votes, their non-committal stance on important things or important races is being duly noted.

    NOBODY gets to ride the fence!

  3. Nick:

    Still waiting for an answer about whether you support shutting down Valley Hi, and if so, what concrete timetable would you support.

    We all know you read this blog about a dozen times per day.

    Pretend like you have a spine for once and take a stand.

  4. I find the legal quotes to be of great interest in that Rutland Township has accumulated a large sum of money to invest in an interest bearing account.

    I have heard about this from a number of people who read their minutes on-line or from those who have attended meetings and some have told me that the amount is around $100,000.

    Yet, nothing has been abated in terms of taxes nor has any money been spent on the residents other than the traditional things townships have to do under the law.

    I wonder if this is happening in other nearby townships (other than Grafton and Rutland)as well. Remember, all township elected positions are coming up for reelection in the next go-round after this current round.

    It’s time the residents of Illinois looked more closely at the role townships play and how their money is spent.

    Not all of the attention should go to county boards!

  5. Nick is panhandling for another government job for his wife, who does not seem to have any employable skills.

    Except for coat holding at Snap-on, neither does Nick.

  6. As I stated last Thursday evening at LWV forum. If elected to County Boad District 1, I will seek legal remedy for the tax payers and rebate the $41 mil BACK to them.

  7. “I will seek legal remedy for the tax payers and rebate the $41 mil BACK to them.”

    You know, you could get the ball rolling on that as a private citizen and file the lawsuit yourself. . .

  8. Boethius, you know I could but any lawsuit I bring as an attorney would be limited to the specific McHenry County taxpayers wronged who personally retain me and are identified in the caption of lawsuit.

    But hey, thanks for the advice and back at you.

    So it behooves me to ask you, Boethius how can I rebate $41 Million Dollars back to taxpayers given this statutory limitation?

    Do you know something about this area of the law that I don’t?

Leave a Reply

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