McHenry County Blog

Continuing with Judge Michael Caldwell’s comments, today we look at three expenditures which the Township Trustees ordered and for which Supervisor Linda Moore was withholding payment when the judge ruled were legitimate.

They are

• payments for transcripts
• videoing of meetings and
• making copies for audience members

On a matter of continuing contention, however, Moore won.

Trustee Rob LaPorta has been insistent that he wants to be able to look at the township books in a “read-only” format over the internet.

Moore’s investigations of the accounting system being used, Quick Books, led her to conclude this was not possible, so she has made them available during office hours at the township office, access that made it difficult for LaPorta to avail himself of.

Here is the part of the judge’s concluding comments in the hearing two weeks ago:

THE COURT: Q & A Reporting. The trustees have a right to have a transcript of their proceedings if they wish. The Q & A Reporting bill should be paid.

Excellence in Copying. If you want to have additional matters from the agenda printed up to be available for the public for the use and inspection at the meeting, that certainly is a legitimate cost.

Point of Video, the same thing.

Now, on the access to the bills, the court’s going to find that the access to the bills — to the financial records as described by me today by Linda Moore in her testimony is adequate to comply with the court’s order.

She has stated that the records are available during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. They are available at other times by appointment.

I don’t find that to be unreasonable on its face.

I am accepting Ms. Moore’s description of what she has made available on the laptop computer because, quite frankly, she is the only one that I know of who has actually seen it or used it or set it up.

The motion here is brought upon basically suspicion, innuendo, supposition and conjecture; that, because the trustees don’t like it. They want remote access, remote access isn’t necessary.

The problem I have with the Internet is that once you get on the Internet there are all sorts of opportunities for mischief, that quite frankly, in this township we don’t need.

I don’t need it and you don’t need it.

Here it is, right on the official Grafton Township web site:

“Only registered voters may attend (and press), you will need to show some form of ID and your name will be matched to our County voters registration roles.”  (Emphasis added.)

Guess whoever made the decision to put that up on the web site didn’t have an adequate understanding of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

Last night at the regular Grafton Township Board meeting, Ancel Glick partner Rob Bush disabused the trustees of any notion that they might be able to keep the non-registered public out:

“It is a public meeting so anyone who wants to come can come.”

Guess it’s time to change the web site.

Maybe it will be changed by the time you read this.

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore took her dispute with Township Trustees Betty Zirk, Gerald McMahon, Rob LaPorta and Barbara Murphy to court Wednesday.

She’s in civil court seeking injunctive relief to regain her role as chief executive of the township. She hoped for immediate relief, but Judge Maureen McIntyre “found there was no emergency,” Moore attorney John Nelson said. A court date will be set Monday.

“The Grafton Township Board of Trustees has, without legal authority, engaged in a broad course of conduct designed to eliminate Supervisor Moore from conducting any Grafton Township business,” the suit says.

As readers know, the township board, still smarting from its judicial loss of the new $5 million township hall on Haligus road and election of nemesis Moore as township supervisor, decided to strip Moore of all the executive functions that their attorney, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer  advised was possible.

“I am sure my client’s (being a plaintiff in the suit and having) engineered the end of the $5 million palace they wanted to build has nothing to do with the board’s concerns…I say that with tongue firmly in cheek,” Nelson said after setting next Monday’s court date to set a court date for a hearing on the merits of Moore’s suit.

“I would encourage anyone who is interested in the case to watch the YouTube video of the last meeting.”

Moore not only seeks the return of her powers, but also, confirmation of the legitimacy of her firing of Ancil Glick partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer and Township Administrator Pam Fender.

Nelson spoke of two court cases upon which he based his motion.

One says that the township supervisor is in charge of hiring and firing employees, as long as there are not more than five paid by the Town Fund. Excluded from the employee count are employees of the assessor and road commissioner, as well as those paid by the General Assistance Fund.

Grafton Township has three bus drivers who fit that category.

“Three are smaller than five,” Nelson said.

Another case rebuked Cicero Town officials for banishing its township collector to a closet and firing the two employees.

Moore’s new office is the township clerk’s old one, one without a window.

Trustees continually point out that the township attorney, selected by Moore, but later dismissed by Moore, “wrote the book.”

Nelson said he was a member of the Illinois Township Attorney’s Association.

“Our association is composed of real lawyers. We don’t write books about township law; we revise township laws.”

Apparently two criminal complaints have been made to the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office by Moore’s antagonists.

One is said to concern manipulation of the private bank accounts of township employees.

“I would categorically deny such accusation,” Nelson said.

The other, more recent, is that financial information has disappeared from township computers.

“The township computers are under the sole custody and control of the township supervisor,” Nelson said.

“They have no right, legal authority or interest in these computers. They are a legislative body.”

“That is an allegation without substance and without meaning. The elected supervisor is the sole custodian of the financial records. It’s really not their complaint to make.

“If the records have disappeared, it’s because of the illegally hired employee (Township Administrator Pam Fender),” Nelson continued.

“It’s a felony to threaten a criminal case to obtain a civil judgment or right,” Nelson pointed out.

Nelson outlined the duties of township trustees:

• They review the bills, audit the bills
• They approve the budget which has to provide adequate space for the assessor, supervisor and town collector to do his or her job.
• They can provide for salaries.
• They can provide conditions, if over five employees.

Township trustees are limited to what the law says.

“These township trustees have stepped way over those bounds,” Nelson charged.

“This is a separation of powers case that involved the fundamental right of people to elect their own political leaders.

“The core issue is that the voters of Grafton Township voted my client in as Grafton Township Supervisor. Their wisdom or lack thereof is no longer at issue.”

Nelson serves as Winnebago County’s Harlem Township Attorney.   That township, north of Rockford, has a population comparable to Grafton’s.

And, who will pay Nelson’s bill?

“I represent her in her official capacity,” he said.

Read this section of the case:

“Supervisor Moore is entitled to legal counsel in her capacity as Grafton Township Supervisor as she is in legal conflict with defendants, and this litigation is necessary to settle the rights, obligations and duties of the parties.  The necessity of payment for legal counsel paid for by Grafton Township is well-settled under the law.  In Wayne Township Board of Auditors, DuPage County v. Ludwig, 154 Ill.App.3d 899, 507 N. E. 2d 199, 204, 107 Ill. Dec. 535, 540 (2nd Dist., 1987) the court held that where an actual conflict exists between a Town Board and one of the town’s officers the town officer is entitled to be represented by independent counsel.  The court went on to say that independent counsel is entitled to a reasonable fee for same.”

McHenry County lies within the 2nd Appellate Court District.

What if Moore wins the case and the trustees won’t follow the judge’s order?

“I would be seeking jail time for contempt,” Nelson said.  If it reaches that stage, it will not be the first time the four trustees have displeased a judge by not obeying a court order.  It happened in the new township hall case, too.

Moore’s seeking judicial approval of her termination of the legal services of Keri-Lyn Krafthefer.

Nelson court document points out that Moore appointed her and says,

“Logic would dictate that Keri-Lyn Krafthefer serves at the pleasure of the Supervisor of Grafton Township.  However, it appears that this is an issue of first impression.”

A link to the full court document can be found here.

Another night at the Huntley Park District complex, another contentious meeting.

But, unlike the previous meetings, the real reason for the conflict—Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s decisive role in killing the $5 million (including interest) new township hall—didn’t come up except in revising the budget as the meeting was winding down.

The township board decided to move Moore out of her two-office complex into a windowless office heretofore occupied by the very part-time township clerk.

To the conference room will go Moore’s assistant, right next to the public bathroom.

While Township Trustee Rob LaPorta thought “none of (the instructions ordered by the board the week before had been carried out) but the (provision) of a stapler has been accomplished,” Township Administrator Pam Fender answers repeatedly indicated they had.

Moore went on the offensive, telling the board members she had talked to Assistant Illinois Attorney General Paul Gaynor about criminal violations concerning taking, hiding or destroying public records.

“Trustees should not cross over from governance to management,” Moore stated as she
passed out the cover of the latest edition of the township officials’ magazine. On the cover of Township Perspective is this headline:

Supervisor is…
manager, coordinator,
administrator of township

Later Moore accused the trustees of micromanaging township affairs.

“The employee works for the official. The board may have no employee of their own,” she read, apparently from the magazine article.

“That wasn’t a reflection of law,” interjected Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafterfer of Ancel Glick, who often seemed to be in control of the meeting.

‘The Huntley Police say I have the right to have my office locked,” Moore continued.

“Stop threatening us,”

Trustee Gerry McMahon shouted.

“Until we get a letter from the Huntley Police, (it means nothing),” LaPorta said calmly.

“How would she like being at home?”

McMahon thundered.

“We are moving out of her office and into her clerk’s office,” LaPorta continued.

Interrupting, McMahon said, “I’ve heard many townships don’t provide an office.”

= = = = =

Here is Part 2.”>Part 2.

With a wish fulfillment that newly-elected Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore would go poof and disappear in the night in the Huntley Park District meeting room last night being unattainable, the other four members of the township board decided to do the next best thing.

To punish the person they blame for derailing their new $3.5 million township hall, they voted to hire a township administrator, a post unheard of in McHenry County, but apparently common in patronage-ridden Cook County Townships seeking ways to justify their existence.

The trustees’ minds were obviously made up before the meeting began.

As Trustee Gerry McMahon pointed out to Moore after LaPorta had taken the high road by vowing the township was going to “follow best practices,”

“There are going to be a lot of changes. Get used to it!”

The perfunctory discussion of the need for such an employee to effectively replace the township supervisor and the presence of the person being hired—political ally and Huntley Village Trustee Pam Fender—in the audience is evidence of the choreographed nature of the meeting.

The cost of the action to taxpayers taken by the four Grafton Township Trustees will be in the $50,000 range once family health benefits are added to the $35,000 salary.

LaPorta pointed out that the compensation “was about half what other townships pay their administrators.”

Linda Moore’s reaction:

“It’s another waste of taxpayers’ dollars. No township of similar size or in McHenry County has seen a need to spend money for this purposed.”

Led by Rob LaPorta, he, Barb Murphy, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon voted as a bloc to hire the Fender, who told McHenry County Blog she is a decorator and contractor as well as village trustee.

When asked, she said she considered this a full-time job.

Asked whether she would run for township supervisor, a rumor about town, Fender replied, “I have no idea at all.”

No job description was available and there was not evidence that anyone else had been considered for the position.

LaPorta turned to Ancel Glick attorney Keri-Lyn Krafterfer for help in explaining what a township administrator would do and other townships who had them.

“Counselor, explain what other townships do,”

LaPorta asked.

“They serve the equivalent function of a city manager,” Krafterfer replied. She then added that an administrator could

• order the thank you plaque for the just-resigned Township Clerk Dina Frigo,
• get bids for surety bonds for trustees whom the board majority wants to countersign all checks and issue them, if Moore refuses to do so within a specified time,
• “do whatever,
• recreation programs,
• transportation services,
• health,
• youth,
• day-to-day” management,
• “assemble the board packets,
• all the things that go into the day-to-day running of the township.”

When pressed for other townships that have administrators, Krafterfer cited

• Palatine (112,740 population found here)
• Orland (91,418)
• Elk Grove (94,969)

“There’s dozens of others. It’s very common.”

Grafton Township had 45,427 people as of 2007.

After that brief description that most people would think contains the duties of a township supervisor, LaPorta said,

“I would like to nominate somebody this evening to provide the best services to the township… Pam Fender.”

She had “significant government and leadership background, has a proven history of getting things done for the community…in a timely fashion.”

Dan Ziller, Sr., and Jr., strong supporters of Moore began expressing their displeasure.

“If you can’t keep quiet, I’m going to ask you to leave,” LaPorta said.

After a few more words, the two walked out the door.

“We need to diminish your troublesome conduct,” McMahon next said to Moore. “You’re not doing a good job for the township. It’s as simple as that.”

Fender then made a presentation including, “I would like to serve the whole of Grafton Township.”

Moore asked Fender,

“When the Village of Huntley hires someone do they hire a friend or the best qualified person?”

but received no satisfaction.

McMahon yet again aimed his ire at Moore by stating to 11-year resident Fender,

“We want you to be a good public relations person. You’re working for the board.”

Fender’s start date is Tuesday. Yet unsettled is where her office will be, but Trustee Zirk thought it ought to be near the front door in the same office as Moore.

Although no job description was available at the meeting, the attorney said,

“We’ll get a job description.”

Neither Barb Murphy nor Zirk had questions for Fender.

The hiring came after a another bill of particulars of things Moore had done wrong leading up to a second censure resolution.

Displeasure over the roll Moore played in killing the township hall was evident periodically throughout the meeting.

“We’d have our own building…”

Gerry McMahon said at the end of the meeting before being interrupted by Rob LaPorta, who said,

“Gerry don’t go there,”

as a lease requested by the Huntley Park District was discussed before being assigned to Fender for investigation.

Earlier McMahon strayed from the script by saying,

“We could have had our own building and been in it by now,”

adding, “That’s satire,” after Moore explained that the park district had expressed displeasure with the township board’s late meetings.  (This one ended after 11.)

The meeting was calmer than the one Moore posted, first on the township web site, then on her own after outraged township trustees order them removed.

I only watched the first part of the meeting, but it must have been a doozy because when Loretta Wuich complained about the way she was treated, LaPorta offered an apology for not acting the way he does in other circumstances.

All the officials are Republican.

As reported by McHenry County Blog November 12th, the four Grafton Township Trustees who wanted to build a new township hall, but didn’t want to ask the public for permission in a referendum, boycotted a township meeting.

Township Supervisor Linda Moore, Township Clerk Dina Frigo, Road Commissioner Jack Freund and Assessor Bill Ottley attended the meeting.

Township Trustees Barbara Murphy, Robert LaPorta, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon weren’t there.

Here’s what the Assistant State’s Attorney Cynthia A. Schaupp said in a January 7th letter to Moore:

This investigation revealed the following:
Mr. LaPorta did contact the Grafton Township attorney to inquire whether he could boycott the November 12, 2009, meeting since the agenda did not contain items he requested to have placed on the agenda.The attorney informed him he can choose to not attend the meeting.

Mr. LaPorta then contacted by telephone Trustee Zire and Trustee Murphy, individually, to inform them that he would not be attending the meeting.

Mr. LaPorta, never told the Trustees that they should also miss the meeting.

Trustee Murphy was not able to go to the meeting due to a work conflict and did not miss the meeting due to the any other reason.

Trustee McMahon did not recall if Trustee LaPorta even contacted him prior to the November 12, 2009 meeting.

The facts presented do not indicate any designed plan or “chain” to violate the Open Meetings Act.

Based on the above facts available to me at this time, this office does not believe there was any violation of the Open Meetings Act and thus will take no further action. However, should any additional information become available, this office may review this decision.

After receiving the above letter Supervisor Moore, who filed an Open Meetings Act violation complaint, sent the following letter to the State’s Attorney’s Office:

Cythia Schaupp
Assistant State’s Attorney
January 8. 2010

Dear Attorney Schaupp,

I have received your letter regarding the boycotting of meetings by the Grafton Township Trustees.  Thank you for contacting the trustees, however, I am concerned that you have overlooked some evidence from reporter Pete Gonigam and new evidence has occurred.

Please review the quote by Trustee LaPorta made at the time that the boycotting occurred to reporter Pete Gonigam who wrote a story the next day on the subject,

“We as a group of trustees decided to do that.”

LaPorta said.  You do not refer to this evidence in your letter even though on November 18th I wrote a letter to you asking you to consider this evidence and contact Mr. Gonigam.

The word boycott defined means

“to join together in refusing to deal with, so as to punish or coerce.”

Source is Webster’s Dictionary and online Your Dictionary.

In your letter, dated January 7th you state that Mr. LaPorta asked the attorney to inquire whether he could boycott a meeting.  Your letter states, “The attorney informed him that he can choose not to attend the meeting.”

Ancel Glick partner Keri-Lyn Krafterfer advising Grafton Township Board.

On November 6, Krafthefer advises the trustees in a letter,

“Further, there is nothing to prevent the Township Trustees from boycotting the regular meeting with your proposed agenda,“

Attorney Krafthefer’s response is also documented in a letter to the trustees dated November 17th,

“There is nothing that prevents one trustee from calling another trustee, then hanging up and calling another trustee.  Such would not constitute a meeting under the Open Meetings Act.”

In other words, she has said there is no such thing as a “chain” call that would violate the Open Meetings Act.

In my opinion, Ms. Krafthefer has given the trustees inappropriate legal counsel in these statements.

Per the Open Meetings Act, “Meeting” means any gathering, whether in person, or by video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means, or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body.

November 12, 2009, Grafton Township Meeting that the four trustes did not attend.

In other words, the definition of a meeting can be calls made one after another between more than two board members.  Mr. LaPorta may have told you that he did not tell the trustees to boycott the meeting, however he admits to doing just that when he is quoted by Pete Gonigam,

“We as a group of trustees decided to do that (boycott the meeting.)”

Since my previous contact with you, the trustees have chosen not to attend four meetings in the month of November and as a result many items of township business are not addressed at this time.  In fact, the trustees did not attend meetings dated November 12, 16, 18 and 24th.

Clearly this was not a one time unplanned coincidental event.  It is reoccurring and intentional.

On January 4th Trustee McMahon was quoted by the Daily Herald reporter Jameel Naqvi as follows,

“I don’t want to go to a meeting called by Linda Moore…don’t care about anything she has on the agenda.”

McMahon said.

Is not this further evidence that the trustees plan to continue to violate the Open Meetings Act by joining together to refuse to deal with, so as to punish or coerce with the township attorney’s apparent permission as documented in your letter of January 7th?

In light of this additional information, you have offered to review this decision.

I am asking that you do reconsider the Open Meetings Violation Compliant that was made by myself and an unnamed McHenry County resident.

After receiving your letter I tried to contact you by telephone, but you were unavailable at that time.  For clarification purposes, I have sent you various documents at various times, but I was under the impression that the investigation was started at the request of another McHenry County resident.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Very Truly Yours,

Grafton Township Supervisor
Linda Moore

Attachments include:
Jan. 7 letter from Office of State Attorney
Nov. 17 letter, page 2 Ancel-Glick
Nov. 18 letter from Linda Moore
Jan. 4 Daily Herald article
Nov. 13 Pete Gonigam article
Nov. 6 Ancel Glick letter

When I asked the First Electric Newspaper‘s Pete Gonigam if he had been interviewed by the State’s Attornedy’s Office, he said that he had not.

It appears that the four-member Grafton Township Board majority got its act together Wednesday night with the help of newly hired attorney Ancel Glick partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer.

Left on the losing end of all contested votes was Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore.  So, while she had company, she was still lonely.

No boycotts like Monday and the Thursday before.

A still interrupting, but markedly calmer than before Trustee Gerry McMahon put it best,

“I believe the essence of the problem is majority rules and some people don’t understand majority rule.”

The obvious leader of the four trustees was Robert LaPorta.  Most of the agenda items proposed by LaPorta and Betty Zirk can be seen in this story.  You can see that Laporta was enjoying himself.

When I left, the board was going into secret session to discuss what apparently they dare not discuss in public:

“Discussion and potential action on prior sale of real estate for road district.”

Prior to going into what elected officials prefer to call “Executive Session,” Moore pointed out there was no mention of the sale she could find in the township minutes.

She had elaborated on the perceived legal problem at more length a previous meeting.

The township attorney at the time, Jim Kelly, and Krafthefer were both included in the closed session.

When Moore questioned Kelly’s inclusion, Trustee Robert LaPorta said,

“We need him as a subject matter expert.”

Earlier in the meeting the four trustees voted to pay Kelley $6,351 owed him.

Before the vote Moore pointed out that $48,941 had been spent on legal fees since the change of administration:

• $37,334 – Jim Kelly
• $10,457 – Joe Gottemoller
• $1,115 – Ancel Glick

There was also a bill pending to the latter for “over $5,000,” she said.

Moore observed that only $45,000 had been budgeted for legal fees for the entire year and that state law said that only 10% of that total– $4,500–could be moved from other line items to legal fees.

“The only was we can pay any attorney fees if at another meeting we (revise) the budget,” she continued.

The majority four approved payment. In her negative vote, Moore reiterated,

“We do not have the funds available.”

All of the above took place in the meeting called by two of the trustees. The meeting called by Supervisor Moore was ruled illegal by the township attorney because its notice had not been posted by Township Clerk Dina Frigo.

Moore read the opinion and, then, reported that the McHenry County State’s Attorney was investigating where an illegal meeting had been held prior to the Thursday boycott of the township meeting.

Frustrated members of the audience gave their views before a third trustee entered the room. Then, Krafthefer silenced them, saying that no business could be conducted.

One woman echoed Trustee Barbara Murphy’s comments from a month ago about the need to “unwind” the loan which the township’s Road Fund took out to pay the Town Fund for the township hall.

That was some irony in such a discussion being held at the old Huntley High School, which the Huntley Park District bought from School District 158.

Both the town hall and the old high school will be paid for twice by local taxpayers, unless the over $600,000 township loan is “unwound.”

One woman in the audience said that would save taxpayers $50,000 a month.

Of course, that does nothing to keep Huntley Park District taxpayers from paying for the high school twice.

The all-Republican township board, by the way, show no sign of recognizing the opportunity their open disagreements are providing local Democrats in 2013.  Indeed, McMahon announced his intention to increase the Clerk’s salary because of the additional duties she was being assigned by the board majority.