McHenry County Blog

This is the second half of an article in which Grafton and Nunda Townships are compared as seen through the eyes of courtroom testimony before Judge Michael Caldwell in the Grafton Township separation of powers case.

Speaking later of finances, Heisler said he provided an income statement and a balance sheet every month.

Heisler was asked to compare Nunda to Grafton Township.

“Our levy’s about $1.1 million. The road district is $3.5 to $4 million. I assume Grafton is similar in size to that.” [See this article for Grafton Township financial information.]

Number of employees were requested.

The supervisor’s office has one full- and one part-time employee “and myself,” Heisler said.

The assessor’s office has seven and the road commissioner “18, I think” to service “100 miles of road.”

The Nunda Township Supervisor was asked if he ever “terminated a township attorney.”

DiCianni again objected to “relevance.”

“Overruled,” Judge Caldwell said.

Heisler told of a situation in which a partner in the law firm of the township attorney represented a developer whose subdivision was deemed objectionable by the Township Planning Commission.

The Trustees agreed and passed a resolution.

Heisler said he didn’t have a problem with his township attorney’s colleague representing the developer until the other lawyer “defamed me” in a letter.

“I had to dismiss the law firm. I couldn’t deal with a law firm with a partner who would defame me.”

“Did you obtain board approval before?”

“I didn’t dismiss him. I asked for him for a letter of resignation, which he gave me.”

Nelson probed further into his relationship with the other elected officials.

“Who directs the actions of the township.

Heisler’s reply:

“I’m chairman of the board and CEO. When I came on board we adopted Robert’s Rules of Order and adopted rules we used at the county board.

“That’s how we conduct our meeting.

“I make the day-to-day decisions in the township.

“There are only two authorized to commit Nunda Township for anything, purchasing anything from supplies to a Chevrolet—the road commissioner and the supervisor.”

Heisler added that he “engage(s) an attorney and a CPA firm without approval of the board.”

When DiCianni got his turn at questioning Heisler he asked whether he would include items on the agenda requested by trustees.

“I’d probably discuss it with him and if after (doing so, thought the request appropriate would do so.)”

Concerning paying bills, Heisler was asked if he paid them after his board approved them.

“We have the checks made out.” [I remember Linda Moore's have said she did that, but stopped preparing hers in advance when the board started disapproving some.]

“You’ve never refused to pay a bill approved by the board?” DiCianni continued. “Always?”

“Yes.”

“When the board has questions, you answer?”

“Yes.”

Does Heisler show the trustees financial information?

“Yes.”

“Was Robert’s Rules of Order approved by the board?”

“Yes. I get along with my board. They have a right to say, ‘No.’”

The Trustees’ lawyer asked about the “process by which you and the road commissioner hire an attorney. The practice is that (your) board hasn’t required advice and consent?”

“That’s our practice,” Heisler replied.

Asked about the attorney who was discharged, the answer was, “He resigned. I asked him for his resignation and he did.”

On re-cross examination, Nelson probed Nunda Township trustees had access to the township’s attorney with resulting bills that were paid by the township.

The answer was a big “No.”

“On one occasion (a trustee called) James Militello, Sr., for clarification. I’ve forgotten the issue. When the legal bill came through, it was on there.

“I asked the trustee to abstain from voting.

“No board member is allowed to commit Nunda Trustee (on anything).

Heisler was asked if his township was typical.

As he answered, “Yes,” DiCianni objected for “lack of foundation.”

This time he was sustained.

So, Nelson asked him about the organization he had chaired, the McHenry County Township Supervisors Association.

He said the group met monthly and was informal.

Asked whether he familiarized himself with “operations of the other townships,” Heisler replied, “Somewhat. A great deal of our discussion is around our General Assistance program.”

Laying foundation, I guess.

“Objection. Lack of foundation, relevance,” DiCianni interjected.

“Overruled,” Judge Caldwell quickly ruled.

My notes say that DiCianni next started asking questions.

“When the board asks you questions, you answer them, right?”

“Yes.”

“You’re not familiar with any township that have dysfunctional relationships between the supervisor an trustees?”

“This is not a club where we sit around and always agree,” Heisler replied. “I always vote last so as not to influence board members.”

“When the board passes a policy, you disagree with, you enforce it, (right)?”

It didn’t make my notes, but I’m pretty sure Heisler answered in the affirmative.

The questioning ceased when Heisler said he was unaware of any other townships with township administrators.

This article covers the third page of the $18,000.73 bill from the Grafton Township law firm Ancel Glink for services regarding the Separation of Powers suit filed by Supervisor Linda Moore against the four Township Trustees.  We are now on the third page where more March 19th bill notation are shown.

March 19th, a Friday, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer spent 3.75 more hours researching “powers and duties of supervisor and other legal issues raised in the complaint.

Monday, March 22nd, Jeff Jurgens was researching the subject as the supervisor’s limitations as a Chief Executive Officer.

Krafthefer, meanwhile, was preparing more correspondence to Huntley Police Detective Kevin Keane.

March 23rd, Tuesday, Krafthefer shared her information in the counterclaim with the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office and exchanged correspondence with the police detective.

Besides that Krafthefer’s time was spent coordinating “issues with Forensicon relating to mission public records.”

Wednesday, March 24th, Krafthefer worked on

• the “issue of the DSL line failing,”
• “items needed for depositions,
• “bill payment issues related to allegations in amended counterclaim,”
• “responses to false allegations in Supervisor’s Complaint,” and
• drafting “initial sections of amended counterclaim.”

Thursday, March 25th, was phone day. Krafthefer was on the phone two hours with AT&T “regarding supervisor’s unauthorized hijacking of Township phone numbers, plus “numerous phones (sic) calls with Township’s officials regarding same.”

She also conferred with the “forensic computer technician” and the “State’s Attorney’s investigator.”

The township attorney drafted a “Notice of Motion and Motion.”

Krafthefer also “finalize(d) materials for court” and “prepare(d) witnesses for hearing.”

Also on the job was Ellen K. Emery, another $185 an hour attorney with Ancel Glink. She prepared a ‘Notice of Motion for Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and g(o)t notice to opposing counsel.”

Almost eight hours of billing in total.

Friday, March 26th, Thomas DiCianni and Krafthefer were off to court with Betty Zirk, Gerry McMahon and Pam Fender. Moore was there, too, but her Rockford attorney John Nelson could not make the morning hearing.

DiCianni billed 4 and a half hours for the court hearing.

Krafthefer prepared for and attended the court hearing on the TRA, billing 2 hours, but noting in parentheses “NO CHARGE.”

For 3.75 hours Krafthefer

• worked on issues related to evidence,
• met with the State’s Attorney’s investigator,
• exchanged correspondence with AT&T,
• had several phone calls with AT&T and “Township regarding same,” and
• conferred with an unnamed client regarding status.

Come Monday, March 29, DiCianni was researching “cases on supervisor’s powers on board,” while Krafthefer still working on the problems with AT&T and reviewing “correspondence campaigning (sic) about denial of general assistance benefits.”

She was also offering advise about an “issue related to forensic computer evaluation.”

The first part of the Tuesday, March 30th, bill appears on page 3 of this section of the bill titled Linda Moore v. Grafton Township.

March 30th was the day of the Township Trustees’ effort to obtain direct telephone service from the township phone numbers.

DiCianni billed 3.5 hours in court “regarding hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order before Judge Caldwell,” plus another quarter hour for a “telephone conference with Pam Fender regarding access to desk.”

For the rest of what was charged taxpayers for the day during which DiCianni replied  a terse, “No comment,” to the First Electric Newspaper Editor Pete Gonigam’s question for one, you’ll have to wait until tomorrow.   That’s the day DiCianni’s and Krafthefer’s clients were threatened with being found in contempt of court.

That was the hearing in which Ancel Glink got what it asked for, but not what it wanted. It resulted in Judge Michael Caldwell’s ordering the Trustees to allow Moore back in her and her predecessor’s office complex.