“The most revealing portion of Lauer’s defense of Supervisor Glees was the fact the illegal acts got past the township attorney. This is astonishing!”
Yesterday, McHenry County Blog published details of Dundee Township Supervisor Patricia “Trish” Glees, complete with documentation, violating the Township Code, particularly 60 ILCS 1/85-45(c).
The response to this story has been overall positive as it reveals the truth of what’s been going on in Dundee Township with an inappropriate business relationship between Glees’ T.G. Consultants, Inc. which she owns and billing the township for over 4 years while Glees has been in office and receiving payments from the Township Board, with Glees casting votes approving the payments of invoices from her business during township board meetings.
Glees of West Dundee was first elected supervisor in 2017 as an independent. She is seeking reelection on April 6 as a Democrat. Glees is being opposed by Arin Thrower (I, West Dundee) who is the director of communications for Lake County.
While Glees did not respond to yesterday’s article, her running mate, Paula Lauer of East Dundee, who’s seeking election as the Democrat for township clerk, submitted a response in social media.
Lauer, a marketing communications specialist for McHenry County College, posted the following on social media shared by a friend of McHenry County Blog responding to a resident named Mary Bright.
Lauer has been an elected trustee for a total of 18 years:
- 10 years as a village trustee in West Dundee in the 1990s
- 8 years as a township trustee in Dundee Township from 2001-2009
Lauer was voted off the Dundee Township board when she sought her 3rd term as a Democrat, after winning election as an independent and reelection as a Republican.
Lauer is opposed on the April 6 ballot by Autumn L. Sheppard (R, Carpentersville).
From the desk of John Lopez: Huh!?
Paula Lauer wants to be township clerk and be the elected official to be in charge of keeping the records of the township, starting with the minutes of the Dundee Township board of trustees? And she has 18 years experience as an elected official over the past 30 years?
Lauer brings “minimizing” to an art form.
“Technically”?
“How is that corrupt?”
I’ll say again, I am not an attorney, and nothing here is to be taken as “legal advice”. I’m just a citizen journalist, and I can read.
Read the relevant portion of the statute, 60 ILCS 1/85-45(c):
And then read the penalty for violating this part of the Township Code in 60 ILCS 1/85-45(e):
Lauer is correct, township bills are usually paid in one motion. A parliamentarian, or the township attorney would have advised the board of the ways to approve a bundled set of bills for payment, mandated the notification by Glees of the relationship of her business to be made publicly (as required by statute), and Glees would then abstain from the voting on the bundle of bills. Period!
But a parliamentarian would not have absolved Glees’ relationship to her business for township payments because of the amount to be paid was well over the $1,000 limit, and the proximity of competitors within 25 miles, set by statute!
The most revealing portion of Lauer’s defense of Supervisor Glees was the fact the illegal acts got past the township attorney. This is astonishing!
Like most townships, as well as municipal boards, the attorney is usually contracted out and is not on staff of the governing body.
I do not know whom the Dundee Township attorney is/was, but in my honest opinion, how could a credible attorney miss this?
Just something more for Dundee Township voters to think about as they decide to cast their ballots between now and the April 6 election for all Dundee Township positions, especially supervisor and now clerk.
And no matter the results, Glees’ actions have placed Dundee Township taxpayers with the exposure to legal expenses to defend Glees should the Kane County State’s Attorney pursue criminal prosecution, or anyone pursue this matter through civil court.
“How is that corrupt?”
Township corruption once again on display.
Brazen display.
Thanks for exposing this Cal.
“should the Kane County State’s Attorney pursue criminal prosecution “.
Is there any question about whether he should pursue this offense?
Whether Glees is re-elected or not, she should be prosecuted.
It’s too late to get this info to the voters before April 6th.
It’s just another example of the lack of scrutiny of township government.
The officials are always “ really saving the taxpayers money” and then laughing all the way to the bank.
I didn’t vote for any women.
I have several questions in this regard. Does the cited provision apply to invoices ?
It clearly applies to contracts, but does an invoice constitute a contract within the meaning of the statute ?
(Exactly how do you, using the language in the statute, “award” an invoice ?)
Now, the statute may have been violated when the contract was, if ever, formally awarded (which is exactly how the statute reads), but does that invalidate the contract and subsequent invoices, particularly if the vote of the interested member wasn’t decisive ?
(The statute appears to say the interested member is prohibited from voting on the awarding of the contract, not that such contract is thereby nullified ab initio or that the interested member is prohibited from voting on resulting invoices.)
It would be interesting to find out if judicial decisions have clarified any of the foregoing.
As my law professors were wont to say, read what something actually says, not what you’ve been told or want it to say.
Thank John Lopez.
We all saw what happened to Lakewood, when Trustees purchased the Lakewood Golf Course and was presented with the “Golden Screw Award” !
Now you have a Township Attorney missing an illegal action?
Do the Taxpayer’s need to hire an attorney to represent them, to protect the taxpayers?
Always thought her comments were defensive, and even suspect, from the first time I read them on FB years ago.
Not too surprising to read that her actions matched.
She and Trish … out!
I’m most curious as to whether Glees actually did save the Township money.
Are there other bids to which we can compare hers?
I like to use Occam’s Razor before I go casting aspersions.
Yes, she voted when she shouldn’t have.
She’s admitted to as much.
Is it a forgivable mistake if she truly didn’t profit?
Maybe.
How can I go about finding out if her company was the cheapest option or not?
Did anyone FOIA the bids?
Innocent Primate, whether Glees’ violation of Township Code is a contract or a conflict-of-interest that is up to the state’s attorney.
Either way, it’s a Class 4 felony to be heard in criminal court, the 16th Judicial Circuit to be precise.
Because Glees’ admission did not say “conflict-of-interest”, I went by the contracts portion of statute.
Think what a real lawyer will do with this.
Why do all these LGBTQ types flock to Glees defense?
They stick together like super glue.
Scratch a township official, discover a thief!
John Lopez
What I’m saying is that the cited provision addresses voting on the awarding of a contract, not voting on invoices.
Typically, invoices are not deemed contracts.
https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/invoicing/are-invoices-contracts#:~:text=An%20invoice%20on%20its%20own,therefore%20a%20one%2Dsided%20document.
You assume that which needs to be proven, that voting on non-contractual invoices in some fashion violates the statute.
If I were defense counsel that would be my first line of defense and challenge in a motion to dismiss — the statute neither addresses nor prohibits an interested member from voting on invoices.
And as the cited provision is a penal provision, the rule of lenity kicks in.
(“The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant.”)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity
By the way, I am a real, honest-to-goodness lawyer.
Innocent Primate, thank you for disclosing you’re an attorney.
Now address what I brought up in 1st reply to you and address conflict-of-interest violation.
Even if you are 100% right on the “Contract vs. Invoice” argument (and I do not concede you are), the conflict-of-interest is valid and apposite here.
And, unless an initial contract between T.G. Consultants, Inc. was made indefinite prior to Glees joining the board, a renewal/extension since May of 2017 would qualify the statute I cited.
John Lopez
Well, I don’t expect you to concede, as I’m unaware of any controlling precedent interpreting the exact scope of Section 85-45(c).
I’m willing to listen and consider a conflict of interest argument, but assuming we are still talking only about 85-45(c), doesn’t such statutory provision by its express terms merely apply to the awarding of a contract, not the approval of invoices ?
So, if the statute isn’t applicable to the approval of invoices, how can any conceivable legal theory be spun under which approval of invoices amounts to a violation of such provision ?
I’m not saying that you are wrong — God only knows what a court might conclude.
All I’m saying is that 85-45(c) doesn’t, to me, seem applicable to the approval of invoices and I would have a problem with any statutory interpretation (both on lenity and due process grounds) under which the approval of invoices was encompassed within its prohibitions.
(For example, assume an interested member abstained (per the statute) from any vote on the awarding of the contract. Would the member nonetheless violate 85-45(c) by voting on approval of invoices ?)
To quote Judge Weaver (Joseph N. Welch of Army-McCarthy hearings fame) in Anatomy of a Murder: “And while I might appear to doze occasionally, you will find that I am easily awakened, particularly if shaken gently by a good lawyer with a nice point of law.”
Yeh, the assessor and highway comissioner turns in expenses all the time BUT THEY DONT VOTE ON THEM.
Big difference.
They know you can’t vote on your own reimbursement! W
hat’s the difference if its an expense or a contract?
Splitting hairs!!
She told the board to vote for her and didn’t want the assessor to vote.
Why wasn’t he informed?!
He is part of the board and should be reibursed for his expenses!!! T
hey have to sit back and do her bidding or she will fire them.
I’m sick of stupid people thinking they can circumscate the law!!!