The LITH Sanitary District’s Case – Part 2

On June 20, 2017, the McHenry County Board passed a resolution “purportedly appointing Eric Hansen…and Kyle Kane.”

Price then lists the problems:

  1. County boards have no authority to make appointments to sanitary district boards, rather it is the Chairman who makes such appointments, with the advise and consent of the County Board.  And, in the case of this multi-county sanitary district, “the appointing authority is the members of the General Assembly.”
  2. Adequate notice was not given on the meeting agenda.  The agenda lists the action item of “Recommendations for Appointments,” but doesn’t say there will be “actual action to appoint.”
  3. “Finally, which Plaintiff Franks previously enjoyed the appointment powers while the District was located only within McHenry County, he lost those powers and could no longer exercise them after the District expanded into Kane County on April 27, 2017.”

Price then goes into the “current dispute.”

He tells of asking the McHenry and Kane County State’s Attorneys, plus the Illinois Attorney General to file a quo warranto suit against Franks’ LITH Sanitary District appointees or that they refuse to do so to provide Key the ability to do so.

[McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally replied to the request as follows the day of the first court hearing:

Price says Kenneally filed the quo warranto “on behalf of Franks, seeking to have this court advance Franks’ political agenda to abolish the sanitary district.”

He adds that besides removing Key from the LITH Sanitary District Board, the suit seeks to validate the County Board’s appointments of Franks’ choices and “to void the Board’s annexation.”

Price says all but the request for Key’s removal are inappropriate for quo warranto relief.

Price then argues for the denial of the TRO, which Judge Thomas Meyer signed, apparently without reading Price’s brief.

Price refers to “black letter law” in his rebuttal to Franks’ attempt to remove appointment power from the General Assembly members.

“The entire basis of Franks’ complaint is ostensibly that, in this instance, the sanitary board members are using existing laws in a manner that contradicts Franks’ stated political desire to abolish the District.”

The brief repeats its argument that after the April 27, 2017, annexation into Kane County, Franks lost his ability to make Board appointments.

“It is noteworthy,” Price continues, “that Franks has not cited any law whatsoever which gives him appointment authority in this situation.”

Price repeats his argument that the Open Meetings Act was violated because the County Board Agenda was not specific about Franks’ making appointments to the Sanitary District Board.

The background concerning the annexation iss explained.

“The District has been planning an expansion for three years. Franks’ entire argument is that the District should not have exercised its lawful annexation powers to expand into Kane County because that thwarts his political goal to gobble up the districts into a village or the county. The complaint contends that the Board’s actions in expanding counter his political goals, which is not a reason to f
void an annexation.”


Comments

The LITH Sanitary District’s Case – Part 2 — 2 Comments

Leave a Reply

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