McHenry County Blog

The days are long gone when one can write-in a name and get elected with one vote.

As the Illinois General Assembly has made it more and more difficult to get on the ballot, one of the changes is that you can’t even get a vote as a write-in candidate unless you register ahead of time.

In Grafton Township, no one ran for Township Clerk and only three people ran for the four Township Trustee spots.

The McHenry County Clerk’s web site says that David Moore, Linda Moore’s husband, received 20 write-in votes for Township Trustee.

Kathryn Francis received 17 votes for the Republican nomination for Township Clerk.

I’ve been told that 14 signatures were needed to get on the ballot. The same number is required for one to win a write-in contest.

So, it appears there will be a full slate of Republicans to face off against an almost full slate on Independents.

It will be interesting to see the level of cooperation during the campaign.

Image and text taken from the April 21, 2010, article.

The misdemeanor battery charge lodged against David Moore, Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s husband, have been delayed two weeks so the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office can respond to new evidence introduced by David Moore’s attorneys, John Nelson and Dan Mengeling.

The additional evidence includes videos of township meetings.

The physical altercation took place after a township meeting when David was attempting to video tape a conversation between Trustee Gerry McMahon and others.

You an read the police report here.

Today Grafton Supervisor Linda Moore’s husband David Moore is in criminal court on October, 2010, battery charges.

Trustee Gerry McMahon points at David Moore while he is taping the meeting.

Concurrently, Moore’s attorney John Nelson in the Separation of Powers case she won is asking for indirect criminal contempt findings against Trustees Rob LaPorta, Betty Zirk, Barb Murphy and Gerry McMahon.

Up to six months behind bars or a fine is requested, the paperwork says.

Here’s the part of Judge Michael Caldwell’s court order which Moore contends that the Trustees violated:

The issue is about the use of a Township credit card that was in existence prior to Moore’s taking office.

The Township Trustees voted not to pay bills incurred through use of the credit card and to cancel the card.

Also bought up was the Trustees’ voting for Moore to return a sound system bought for use at the Annual Town Meeting and at bi-monthly bingo games.

Read the text comparing Moore’s actions to the $53 million embezzlement in Dixon, Illinois:

“Deliberately and willfully violating the terms of this Court’s injunction” are the “red meat” words on the page.

David Moore sits in the front row unobtrusively taping a Grafton Township Board meeting. From left to right at the table are Grafton Township Trustees Barb Murphy, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon, all of whom voted to banish videographers, photographers and those making audio recordings to the back of the room. Reporter Pete Gonigam sits to his far right taking notes. Trustee Rob LaPorta left the meeting early.

Just as whites were more privileged than blacks on Montgomery Alabama, buses, those trying to video or audio tape and photograph Grafton Township meetings seem to be now less equal than print reporters with pencil and pad.

This picture of David Moore was taken at a December, 2009, Grafton Township Board meeting. Donna McMahon and attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer sit to his right.

The Public Access Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office has issued a non-binding ruling to yours truly and Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore seemingly affirming the resolution passed on April 8, 2010, restricting

“the use of audio and video recording equipment and photography equipment to either the final row of seats or behind the final row of seats in the meeting room,”

as Assistant Public Access Counselor Steve Silverman puts it in his letter of April 14, 2011.

David Moore tapes from the front row. Note how he is not obstructing anyone's view of the meeting.

When I received a communication asking if I had any rebuttal to what was sent in by former Grafton Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer of the law firm Ancel Glink, you can bet I did.

You can read it here.

But, it apparently fell short.

The “Determination” is not a binding opinion, so it cannot be appealed to Circuit Court under Administrative Review Act.

The Determination, in which I have separated the sentences to make it easier to read on a screen, follows:

Determination

Section 2. 05 of OMA provides that “any person may record the proceedings at meetings required to be open by this Act by tape, film or other means. The authority holding the meeting shall prescribe reasonable rules to govern the right to make such recordings.”

5 ILCS 140/ 2.05. In an informal opinion ( a copy of which is attached hereto), the Office of the Attorney General previously advised that ” reasonable rules” under Section 2. 05 are ” guidelines which protect the integrity of a public meeting and those participating in it” and “guidelines that prevent interference with the overall decorum and proceedings of a meeting.”

Thus, the right of the public to record open meetings should only be limited pursuant to prescribed rules of the public body, and only to the extent truly necessary to prevent disruptions or safety hazards.

Based on the available information, it appears that the Board’ s restriction on the use of photography and recording equipment constituted a reasonable rule governing the right to record under Section 2. 05 of OMA.

The meeting minutes show that the Board member who made the motion to approve the rule indicated that Board members had been distracted during meetings by close range flash photography.

At an October meeting Trustee Gerry McMahon got so out of control that Trustee Barb Murphy (on the left) moved to censure him. The motion passed.

The restriction limited Mr. Skinner’ s choice of angles for photographing Board members, but did not bar Mr. Skinner or any other individual from photographing or recording meetings.

This shot of the meeting room shows the amount of space behind the tables where the public officials sit.

We also note that, in light of the relatively small size of the meeting rooms used by the Board, restricting the use of photography and recording equipment to either the last row of seats or behind the last row of seats constituted a relatively minor limitation which did not substantively interfere with the statutory right to record meetings.

Therefore, we conclude based on the information at our disposal that the action taken by the Board on April 8, 2010 to restrict the placement of individuals operating recording and photography equipment did not violate the public’ s right to record Board meetings under Section 2. 05 of OMA.

Here's a view of a regular meeting room from the back.

This Board subsequently enacted a comprehensive ordinance to establish rules for recording, including a similar restriction on the placement of individuals operating video and photography equipment.

That ordinance is not at issue in this determination letter as the Board enacted it after Mr. Skinner filed his Request for Review.

A November, 2009, shot of the officials' table and space behind.

However, Mr. Skinner objected to parts of the ordinance in his reply to the Township’ s response to his allegations and we are concerned that certain portions may constitute unreasonably restrictive rules under Section 2.05.

A view of the not-so-small room from its back.

Most notably, the ordinance requires that individuals provide advance notice of their intent to record meetings by signing a sign- in sheet, and authorizes the Board to ” prohibit the recording of any audience member who objects to being recorded.”

It is not readily apparent why those rules and certain other restrictions in the ordinance are necessary to prevent disruptions or safety hazards at Board meetings.

We strongly suggest that the Board review the entire ordinance for compliance with Section 2. 05 of OMA based on the standard for ” reasonable rules” set forth above.

This letter will serve to close this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (312) 814- 6756.

Sincerely,

Steve Silverman
Assistant Public Access Counseloriz

David Moore taping an April township board meeting.

The press release below was issued by the Huntley Police Department. It relates to a confrontation between Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s husband David and Township Trustee Gerry McMahon.

David Moore is one of the mildest men I have ever met, while McMahon is the most combative public official I have ever observed.

Image and text taken from the April 21, 2010, article.

McMahon clearly does not like his township board participation videotaped. You can see that in this April 21, 2010, article or this one.

Battery Charges Filed in altercation

Thursday evening October 14, 2010 at 11:41 pm the Huntley Police Department responded to the Huntley Park District (12015 Mill St. Huntley) for a report of a battery that had just occurred.

The investigation into the incident revealed that a physical altercation occurred between David C. Moore and Gerald McMahon.

It is being alleged that David Moore approached Gerald McMahon outside the meeting room in the park district building and started videotaping McMahon’s conversation with other members of the Grafton Township Administration.

McMahon put his hand up and attempted to block the videotaping when Moore reacted and allegedly placed his hands on McMahon’s upper body and shoved him.

McMahon then slapped Moore as he was being pushed.

David Moore was taken into custody by Huntley officers and transported to the station.

Moore was charged with Battery.

Moore posted $150.00 bond and was released with a McHenry County court date of November 19, 2010 at 8:30am.

Defendant:
David C. Moore DOB 11/15/62
13904 Harmony Rd

The Moore family home.

There were plenty of political motives to change the longstanding agreement that Huntley 158 had which allowed Linda Moore and her family to live in the house she grew up in.

Linda’s family sold the school district the property that Huntley High was on and retained the right to live in the tiny house on the opposite side of Harmony Road. The house was 1,200 square feet; the hen house 350 sq. ft.

Linda Moore ran for school board. The political knives of existing school board members
came out.

She ran with Aileen Seedorf, who was the top vote getter. Board President Mike Skala narrowly lost (13 votes) to his running mate Jim Carlin. Linda Moore ran just one vote behind.

Skala’s friends on the board were ticked.

David and Linda Moore talk with former school board member Glen Stewart after he was appointed Chief Operating Officer of Huntley School District 158 by his fellow school board members.

Superintendent John Burkey appears to have begun a mission to generate negative publicity about Moore being in the house rent free and how this somehow was so terrible or unfair. Burkey certainly seemed glad to allow negative publicity and administrator remarks be directed at the Moores.

Apparently honoring an existing legal agreement is subject to interpretation when you have “free” legal services of the government at one’s disposal.

The Moore family farm barn and silo.

The district insisted on charging rent. The Moore’s simply moved almost next door, to another house they own.

Now the school district is about to authorize tearing the tiny house down, along with the hen house and barn.

The demolition cost will be over $44,000.

The district could have avoided spending the money.

But that would have meant allowing the Moore family to live in the tiny house. The Moores were responsible for the upkeep of the house and maintenance of the grounds. An old drafty house is expensive to heat in the winter. Paying what rent the district wanted made sense for one year as a transition, but it wasn’t economical to stay.

The kitchen was bright.

School board members knew that. They also knew it would be expensive to tear down the buildings. At the time, board member Larry Snow told the board that it would cost at least $20,000 to tear down the building and the board majority scoffed that it could cost this much.

More than $44,000 for demolition will be likely approved at July’s board meeting.

Not a penny of which, of course, will go toward improving the educational services of the students.

Johler Demolition will get to keep the boards after tearing down one of Huntley’s historic
barns. I wonder if paneling basements in barn boards is still in style.

School board politics and not wanting the Moore’s to live in the family house means one of
Huntley historic barns will get torn down.

The demolition bids can be found on page 8 at this link.

No thought of allowing a teacher who was starting out to rent the home, I guess.

= = = = =
Starting in 1842, the Williams family lived on the farm it purchased for $75. In 1942 Linda Moore’s grandfather, Louis Borhart brought the farm. The family moved next door two yea+rs ago.

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore stands with arms crossed looking at Township Trustees the night of December 12, 2009, one of the nights the Trustees censured her.

It was the 30th day of the month of March where we left off looking at the Ancel Glink bill for defending the four Grafton Township Trustees in Linda Moore’s Separation of Powers suit against them and Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer.

Page 4 of what Grafton Township law firm Ancel Glink calls its "Linda Moore v. Grafton Township" section of it March invoice. Click to enlarge.

Litigation Partner Thomas DiCianni adds to his 3¾ hours on the previous page for court time and a phone call with Township Administrator Pam Fender “regarding access to desk.”

On this fourth page of the $18,500.75 invoice to defend the Trustees and his partner Krafthefer, DiCianni bills for

• a quarter hour for “telephone conference with Pam Fender regarding Township phone lines,”
• a half hour for a “telephone conference regarding Moore’s efforts to undo order,”
• a quarter hour to “review Motion to Continue Depositions; Motion to Reconsider,”
• a quarter hour to “research cases regarding powers of Township Board,” and
• a quarter hour to “research case issues and correspond on same.”

Partner Krafthefer, not billing for two hours while in court, did bill for

Keri-Lyn Krafthefer

• a quarter hour to “prepare correspondence to police department and state’s attorney regarding server,”
• a quarter hour to “confer with witnesses prior to court hearing,”
• an hour for “numerous phone calls advising clients regarding implementation of court order; prepare correspondence to AT&T regarding DSL line,”
• a quarter hour to “confer with Forensicon regarding states of forensic evaluation of server,”
• an hour “confer(ing) with Trustees LaPorta and McMahon to update on court proceedings this morning” (McMahon attended the hearing, along with Trustee Betty Zirk and Township Administrator Pam Fender.),
• a quarter hour in “preparation of revised document received for Plaintiff’s (Moore’s) deposition notice,
• a half an hour “review(ing) materials regarding senior bus service and waiver; prepare correspondence to State’s Attorney,”
• a quarter of an hour “communicat(ing) with AT&T regarding phone service,”
• two and a quarter hours “outlin(ing) issues for amended counterclaim; begin drafting chronology of events,” and
• a final quarter hour “review(ing) general provisions for general assistance law.”

105.75 hours for the firm of Ancel Glink, totaling $18,193.75 in legal fees.

In addition there is shown $306.98 is in photocopying bills and a fee to subpoena Supervisor Linda Moore’s husband David for a deposition.

The final page of the Linda Moore v. Grafton Township invoice for March, 2010.

The last page of the four-page bill contains the $18,500.75 total.

One thing is certain. Grafton Township officials make enough use of law firm Ancel Glink’s services that readers of the legal fee invoices can discover a lot of what is happening on a day-by-day basis.  Today’s bill covers the last half of March.

As we continue through the fourteen pages of Grafton Township’s law firm’s bill for the month of March, we see that the outside auditor selected without any Request for Proposal by the Township Trustees (Wally Brown is the name used) is the subject of consideration.

Page 3 of Ancel Glick's legal bill to Grafton Township. (Click to enlarge.)

Again the agenda comes up. “Closed session minutes” also occupy the time of the attorney.

Perhaps readers get a clue when the idea for hiring a professional videographer was conceived On March 22nd, Township Administrator Pam Fender faxed a proposal to Keri-Lyn Krafthefer. It took a quarter of an hour to review, costing taxpayers $46.25. (Not the videoing of the meeting. That costs $250 a night.)

Preparing for and attending the special township board meeting at which Harriet Ford was appointed Township Clerk took 5.25 hours. Not quite $1,000 for the day’s work. Add the extra quarter hour for reviewing the March 11th closed session minutes and it gets really close, however.

And, it looks like someone other than I file Freedom of Information requests. I see one for General Assistance and Emergency Assistance that took three-fourths of an hour on two different days.

Getting ready for the new township clerk to take office took over a half an hour. At least it looks like more than a half an hour was billed.

The Annual Town Meeting appears commingled in a bill notation with Town Clerk research. As with the phone call with a Trustee on the first page of this “Corporate” section of the bill, the person asking the questions is unnamed.

Besides the almost $1,000 related to the Special Township Board Meeting on March 23rd, the final entry for 3.5 hours ($647) to prepare for and attend another Special Meeting on March 30th, plus meeting with Trustee Betty Zirk concerning “pending litigation” is next highest on this last page of the Corporate billing.

Also appearing for the first time are legal expenses related to property acquisition. The identity of the property is unclear. Ancel Glink attorney Paula V. Randall spent two hours reviewing file materials, conferring with Fender and looking at “contractual documents.”

Total for “Corporate?”

$8,343.75.

Five attorneys. 45.75 hours, all documented in quarter hour increments.

The final page of the "Corporate" section of Ancel Glink's bill for March.

In addition, there are photocopy bills and fees for filing pleadings for lawsuits involving Linda Moore, which would seem to be better placed in the separate billing for “Linda Moore v. Grafton Township.” The total for these extras is $334.44, making a grand subtotal of $8,678.19.

= = = = =

Although a videographer has been hired by the Township Trustees, I cannot find his work on the internet.

David Moore’s videos, on the other hand, can be found here.

Let’s tiptoe through the Grafton Township Attorney’s legal billing for the month of March, 2010.

Because it’s so long—14 pages totaling $36,432.14—I’ll break it up for you so your eyes won’t glaze over.

Or at least they’ll have to glaze over every day for a couple of days.

You saw the $36,432.14 summary of the bill here.

Below you see the first page of what the law firm of Ancel Glink characterizes as “Corporate” work for Grafton Township. There are four more, which will be published one a day.

In this page of the Ancel Glink invoice, after workking on Township Administrator Pam Fender's job description, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer spends 4 1/2 hours at $185 an hour preparing for and attending the March 2nd budget workshop. She also reports work for Trustee Barb Murphy, Rob LaPorta and an unnamed trustee. The phone and financial records controversies come up, as does the bus schedule and changing of locks on Township Superivsor Linda Moore's office. Krafthefer also bills an hour and a half for organizing township files. Eavesdropping relating to Moore is addressed, as is David Moore's "recording of personal lienesses of township employees." Click to enlarge.

In four days, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer bills 14 hours at $185 per hour and associate Jason T. Olson bills 1.5 at $105 per hour, if my addition is correct.  There are three pages to come.

Here is the video that David Moore took of Grafton Township Trustee Betty Zirk making a motion to require all photographs, video recordings and tape recordings to be taken from the back of the room. It is Section 14 of the recordings of the April 8, 2010, meeting of the Grafton Township Board. From left to right, the trustees are Barbara Murphy, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon.

Betty Zirk makes the motion for what she calls “reasonable rules.” Photo is from David Moore's video.

Trustee Barb Murphy points to the back of the room where the Township Trustees' $250 a meeting videographer is recording the meeting. Photo is from David Moore's video taken from the front row of seats.

Gerry McMahon makes sure the public record includes his intention that Township Supervisor Linda Moore's husband, who took the video above, is included in the motion that all taking pictures of the meeting must be at least in the back row of chairs.

The article with my complaint and the initial reply from the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor’s Office can be found here. You may remember that the McHenry County Board considered a similar plan to banish photographers to the back of the county board room.  After pressure from the Northwest Herald, the board members changed their minds. And, here’s an ironic twist. The Northwest Herald lawyer who sued my on my birthday last summer defended my actions in taking photos. My guess is that, having sued me, the Northwest Herald won’t get involved this time around. They have no corporate stake in the matter. I’ve never seen a NW Herald photographer at one of Grafton Township’s regular or special township board meetings. Usually, there’s not even a reporter.