McHenry County Blog

I’m losing count. Was today the fourth day of testimony in the Grafton Township separation of powers suit?

Maybe it was that I arrived by the expected start time, but an argument over a Temporary Restraining Order wanted by the McHenry County Health Department on a two-year old issue postponed testimony until 1:30.

In any event at least I remembered to take a cushion to soften the hard bench in Judge Michael Caldwell’s court today.

But listening to the who hit whom when and where is wearing on me.

If the question is whether Grafton Township government is dysfunctional, that has long since been proven.

Again it was Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s political enemies on the witness stand.

First up was a Forensicom “Senior Forensic Examiner” testifying that his firm had not finished its work because it had not been paid by Grafton Township. While not privy to contractual details Yoniv Schiff explained how people he supervised in the six-man firm for whom he works, copied a computer “in Pam’s office” and told a server to Chicago to copy because it was taking too long in Huntley.

Schiff explained how a program called Eraser, one version of which is available over the internet, was used to erase data from the computer, but not the server. February 8th was the day version 5.8 of the program was installed on the computer. It was “run against specific files and over(wrote) the data on those files,” he said.

The folder erased and overwritten was called “QuickBooks.” It “was sent to the recycle bin for deletion.”

On February 9th, he continued, “a flash storage device was attached to the computer.”

March 2nd saw “two separate external hard drives…attached to the computer.”

Under cross examination by Moore’s attorney John Nelson, Schiff revealed that his firm had been retained by Ancel Glink.

Admitting his lack of computer expertise, Nelson revealed,

“I want you to understand that the next email I send will be my first.”

Schiff confirmed that whatever was erased can be recreated, although he testified that he had not don’t any actual examination of the computer, rather his study was on “the forensic images of the computer.”

“At this point there is no evidence that an eraser program has been installed in the server?” Nelson asked.

“That is correct,” was the reply.

When asked whether February 29th was the only date the flash storage device was used, Shirff did not recall.

Schiff couldn’t testify to what happened when the external hard drives were attached because his firm had not been paid.

“Did you discover any deletions from a year prior?” Nelson asked. “Did you examine for that?”

“No,” Schiff replied.

There has been talk that Moore’s predecessor removed data from a township computer before leaving office.

The Judge asked some clarifying questions including one concerning the server. Schiff explained that his firm had “not determined what, if any, metadata (“data about data”) has been removed from the computer.”

Next up was Dina Frigo, the former Township Clerk.

It was pretty obvious she and Moore didn’t get along.

“Not a very pleasant relationship,” was how she started her testimony.

She intimated that Moore had a key to her office and had put a copy machine and files inside without her knowledge or permission. Moore had previously denied that and on cross examination, pointed out that if Moore had a key she would not have had to file Freedom of Information requests about which Frigo complained.

Moore did say that the building’s landlord, the Township Road Commission had keys to all the rooms.

How many FOI requests?

“Too numerous to mention.”

“You’re telling me you received FOI requests for information that was in the township hall?” Judge Caldwell asked.

“Yes. She would FOI my mail, too.”

Frigo did quote Moore assistant Trudy Jurs as asking via email, “Will you please give me information on the xerox I placed in your room?”

Frigo reported that Moore had opened her mail, specifically citing one from the Local Archives Division of the Secretary of State’s Office.

There were accusations concerning Moore’s putting up and taking down meeting notices.

Re-enforcing testimony was provided that Moore usually kept the door to what used to be the reception area closed and locked.

Frigo generalized about Moore’s treatment of her. A sample follows:

“She was getting hostile, persistent, argumentative. You could not talk to her at all. I’d excuse myself from the situation.”

Then there was the Milestone Mortgage call.

A representative from the firm called to verify Frigo’s employment and how long she had worked for Grafton Township.

Did Moore refuse to do so out of privacy concerns?

No way to know.

Under cross examination Frigo admitted she had not told Moore that a mortgage company might be inquiring.

All apparently ended well because McHenry County Clerk Kathie Schultz was able to fax the evidence needed to the firm.

It was again pointed out that Moore did not have contact information for the Grafton Township Food Pantry as she provided for other ones.

On December 17th, Frigo said she filed a police report because she thought Moore had used a date stamp that was unique to her office.

When asked why she resigned, it was because

“I could not work with Linda Moore anymore. It was very stressful for me and my family, the continual turning things around, twisting things…”

“When you resigned, didn’t you say you resigned because you had obtained full-time employment?” Nelson asked.

“That was one of the reasons,” Frigo replied.

Just before, the court learned Frigo was working for Huntley School District 158 as a lunchroom worker and recess person. The word “substitute” was used but I didn’t catch with regard to which assignment.

Disputes over the content of minutes Frigo wrote, which were not approved until after she resigned took up a good bit of time.

Nelson inquired about when the Food Pantry was moved out of the township office complex.

Despite being on its board, Frigo couldn’t remember.

Nelson sought specifics about what Moore had said she did that she didn’t do and what she said she didn’t do that she did and got a few.

Frigo revealed to the Judge that the Township Board stopped operating under Robert’s Rules of Order after revealing board meetings under Supervisor Rossi lasted ten minutes to an hour, while those after Moore took office lasted 3-4 hours.

She was asked the question about which I filed a Freedom of Information request:

Did she recall the board under Rossi ever voting on the hiring or firing of any attorneys?

“I can’t recall off hand.”

The next witness was Frigo’s successor Harriet Ford.

Township Trustees’ attorney Thomas G. DiCianni put into evidence seven sets of township minutes. Nelson observed they “do not bear your seal” when he questioned her.

“She can certify by seal or testimony,” DiCianni said.

Nelson asked Ford the same question I had filed a Freedom of Information request about, that is, whether any of the minutes report the “hiring or firing of any attorneys?” as Trustee Rob LaPorta had affirmed on the last court date.

“I’m unaware,” Ford replied.

At 4:40 the last witness of the day, Trustee Betty Zirk, took the stand.

She was asked if the Grafton Township Food Pantry had ever been an official part of Grafton Township.

The answer was, “No.”

She went through what appeared to be rehearsed answers to questions about her views of the duties of township trustees.

In answer to a question of whether she was “motivated by a political dispute over a township hall,” she answered in the negative.

She was asked how she voted at the 2010 Annual Town Meeting.

She said she voted with the majority.

“It’s just we’re having problems with some of the duties,” she said.

The locked door objection was reprised,

• as was the intercepting “some of our mail,” including one from the Herb and Jack Franks law firm,
• as was Moore’s not having presented a proposal of Brown Accounting to the board for the 2008-2009 audit,
• as was charging Rutland Township senior bus riders $3, instead of the $1 charged Grafton Township residents,
• as was not paying the Huntley Chamber of Commerce dues, as was the firing of part-time employees by Moore,
• as was the budget (“We found so many problems. I finally said it was time to have the auditor come in and revise it.”),
• as were meeting agendas,
• as was the delay in payment of Attorney Jim Kelly’s bill for representing the trustees in their appeal of Judge Caldwell’s “You can’t build the township hall without giving proper notice” decision.

Four of the Grafton Township Trustees coalition left the courthouse first today.

Court adjourned just before 5 PM. The ceiling lights blinked out as I was approaching the stairs.

The Huntley-centric Grafton Township Board reached out to the northeast corner of the township to select a Lakewood woman as township clerk.

On a 5-0 vote, the board voted for Harriet Ford.

Ford edged out Kristy Borchart and Joan Citro, both of Huntley. Citro was disqualified because she had not voted in a Republican primary election.

The appointee had to be a Republican because Dina Frigo had been elected running as a Republican.

Ford was sworn in immediately after the meeting adjourned by Township Supervisor Linda Moore.

Ford has served six years on the Glendale Heights-Bloomingdale Grade School Board, was Bloomingdale Village Clerk for eight years, is President of the NISRA Foundation and is on the Grafton Township Food Pantry Foundation Board.

She used to handle public relations for Del Webb and previously did similar work for Grafton Township.

In other business the trustees voted 4-0 after a secret meeting with their attorney (with Linda Moore abstaining)

“to direct the attorney to act as directed in closed session relating to the Moore vs. Grafton Township litigation,”

which turned out to be Linda Moore’s separation of powers suit against the four trustees.

Township Assessor Bill Ottley gained approval to purchase a new computer software program from Elgin’s Cirone Computer Consulting, which also serves McHenry, Nunda, Dorr, Marengo, Richmond and Coral Townships.

The cost was $58,800 spread over two years with a 15% a year maintenance fee (just under $9,000, as Trustee Betty Zirk pointed out) starting in the second year.

In other things computer, Township Administrator Pam Fender recommended the hiring of Leading IT Solutions, which she said was a member of “our Chamber of Commerce,” as well as Woodstock’s.

The board agreed, with Trustee Rob LaPorta saying, “This should be the only authorized person to work on township computers.”

“Except for my office at home,” Supervisor Moore interjected.

“If you incur a bill, don’t expect us to pay it without prior approval,” Trustee Gerry McMahon said.

To obtain read only access to township financial records, Fender reported would cost $2,446 for the hardware and $1,200 for installation. She said that if the township signed an annual contract with Leading IT Solutions for $3,656, the $1,200 would be included.

The firm charges $75 per hour.

Discussion of using the township bus to bring seniors and the disabled to the April 13th Annual Town Meeting was a bit contentious with Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer suggesting applications that would indicate the time a request for a ride was made.

Reading the agenda item, which talked of serving “regular” riders, Moore asked, “How can we discriminate against irregular riders?”

Various suggestions were made.

“One thing we shouldn’t be doing is picking this to death,” McMahon said.

Attorney Krafthefer observed,

“We don’t want to end up with any political discrimination suit?”

“If it’s impossible to create an audit trail, maybe we shouldn’t do it,” Trustee Rob LaPorta said.

Trustee Barb Murphy pointed out that the bus was used two years ago.

“But not last year,” LaPorta said.

Moore suggested perhaps Senior Service Associates and Faith in Action might provide rides for people who wanted them.

After a bit more discussion, LaPort said,

“This appears to be creating more trouble than it’s worth,”

and the meeting moved on.

The reason I went to the meeting was that preparing the agenda for the Annual Town Meeting was on the agenda.

But, it was a non-started.

The township attorney said she wasn’t prepared because no one had asked her to do anything on the agenda.

That strikes me as a bit odd, considering the effort that was made to make certain the order entered concerning the taxpayer suit filed by Dan Ziller, Jr., et al, would not preclude moving ahead on things like buying the Haligus Road property and having the Township Road District buy the Grafton Township Hall.

Indeed, McMahon expressed the desire to word questions put to the Township Electors in a format in which they could ratify past actions found illegal by Judge Michael Caldwell and the 2nd Appellate Court.

Talking about the Haligus Road property, which Krafthefer said she had just received new information on from Lake in the Hills the afternoon of the meeting, McMahon said, “Ratify and sell it on the open market.”

“I didn’t have any information about Haligus Road until this afternoon,” she said.

Krafthefer did not reveal what new information she had learned, despite being repeatedly asked by Moore, but it was Lake in the Hills Attorney Richard Flood.

Krafthefer did, however, allowed as how she “could provide an educational statement.”

“We need to legally fix things,” she added.

“Couldn’t we ask to have acceptance, Yes or No?” McMahon asked.

“Those are the two choices,” the attorney replied.

“We don’t need to think that everything has to be undone,

” McMahon continued. “Get a second set of electors to approve it.

“That’s what I want.”

In contrast to the

“let’s give Pam Fender a $35,000 job without asking if anyone else might want it or be more qualified”

approach last Thursday night (lots of comments; no deadline as in the Northwest Herald) by the Grafton Township Board, public notice will be given through newspapers that the board is seeking applicants to replace just resigned Township Clerk Dina Frigo.

Those interested in the position, which provides the same full family health benefits worth about $15,000 per year that Fender, as “Township Administrator,” will receive on top of her $35,000 salary, should send a letter and resume to the

Deputy Grafton Township Clerk
10109 Vine Street
Huntley, IL 60142

It should be noted that Fender did not hand the trustees a resume.

There’s a March 1st deadline.

If you are interested, do it soonest.

The township clerk is a partisan position. Only those who are Republicans are eligible for appointment because Frigo won election running as a Republican.

The duties are light and the pay is good.

Take minutes, post notices, file forms. That’s about it and you’ll have a highly paid lawyer to help you.

The benefits are obviously outstanding…even outrageous.

Of course, the board could have already selected someone and be just playing charades with the public on this appointment.

On one web site, someone indicated that Fender herself wanted the position.

Appointing her could solve the problem of what office to give Fender.

Trustee Betty Zirk mentioned that Fender could be in the same office as Township Supervisor Linda Moore, apparently forgetting that Moore needs a private office to interview people seeking General Assistance.

If Fender were appointed township clerk as well as township administrator, the board could either up her gross pay to $45,000 or, considering she has already said she will do the job for $35,000, cut her pay for township administrator to $25,000. Giving her both jobs would also save $15,000 or so in health benefits, assuming that the person appointed clerk would want his or her family covered.

The agenda to tonight’s Grafton Township Board meeting has been posted.

It will be held at the Huntley Park District Building starting at 7:30 PM.

The agenda, an amalgam of what each of the board members and the supervisor want considered have a couple of interesting items.

First, it appears the township board is prepared to appoint a successor to recently-resigned Township Clerk Dina Frigo.

The board is apparently prepared to accept Frigo’s resignation because agenda items are in place to buy a “plaque or appropriate gift,” pass a proclamation honoring her and discuss and take action on replacing her.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no attempt to solicit applications from the general public for the pending vacancy.

The job pays $10,000 and full family health benefits, so there probably would be no dearth of people willing to apply, considering the state of the economy.

Next on the agenda is “discussion and potential action on hiring Township Administrator or similar employee.”

That should be interesting.

I note that there is no mention of Freedom of Information requests and their status.

That’s what the compensation for the Grafton Township Clerk is.

Dina Frigo recently announced her resignation as of February 4th.

Someone has to replace her.

Could it be you or one of your friends who has just lost a full-time or part-time job?

Of course, one must be a resident of Grafton Township.

And, if you want to keep the job more than the three years remaining in the elected official’s term, you would need to run for the office and get elected.

Take a look at the map. Grafton Township runs from a north-south basically running through the center of Crystal Lake Meridian Street in Lakewood)
south to the McHenry-Kane County line.

Although it is a public position, no one has laid out any application process.

Maybe the township board, which makes the appointment, has already decided on a replacement.

The next meeting of the township board is February 11th—at the Park District Building—if recent practice is followed.

Since there are no application procedures, if you are interested in the not-too-much-work, decent part-time salary and marvelous health benefits for the entire family, why not send a letter asking to be considered (containing your qualifications, of course) to

Grafton Township
10109 Vine Street
Huntley, IL 60142

Confirmed by Grafton Township Trustee Rob LaPorta, Grafton Township Clerk Dina Frigo has resigned.

“Resignation of clerk confirmed. She is excited about a new full time job and will be putting full focus on that and her family.

“We thank her for her time with us and wish her much success.”

I assume Township Supervisor Linda Moore will nominate Frigo’s replacement.

Moore and Frigo have been at odds.

But any nomination would have to be confirmed by the township board on which LaPorta seems to be the leader.

It will be interesting to see if the two sides can agree upon some more or less neutral or non-involved person for the job.

Maybe selecting a professional secretary who cares not one wit for politics might be the answer.

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.

Four township officials, including all the full-timers, attended the Grafton Township meeting at Faith Community Church on Algonquin Road, but the four part-timers boycotted it.

Of the members of the township board, only Supervisor Linda Moore attended.

Barbara Murphy, Robert LaPort, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon were absent.

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

Without a quorum of three out of five members of the township board, Moore adjourned the meeting.

To read what the township trustees did not want to discuss, click here.

The following has been received from the office of Jim Bishop, attorney for Dan Ziller, Jr., et al, in their successful case against the Grafton Township Board’s attempt to build a new township hall without voter approval:

The Illinois Appellate Court officially ended the legal battle of the stalled Grafton Township Town Hall project. No negotiations with respect to settlement are either appropriate or necessary.

The Appellate Court ended all speculation with its Decision of September 18, 2009, ruling in favor of the Grafton Township residents that filed suit against Grafton Township Officials, the Appellate Court ruled that there must be a the then Township Supervisor, John Rossi and the other Trustees.

The Appellate Court has ruled that the issue must be placed on the ballot for the vote of the residents of Grafton Township at the November 2010 General Election. The referendum will determine whether the project to construct a new township hall, estimated to cost in excess of $5 million, will proceed.

For more than seven months, the residents of Grafton Township have pleaded with, and finally sued, the Grafton Township Board of Trustees to delay the construction until a referendum could be placed on the ballot concerning this important matter.

Over a period of many months, the Grafton Board of Trustees refused to halt the project necessitating the litigation.

The Appellate Court sided with the residents on all issues in the Court’s 12 page published Opinion.

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore, who has been steadfastly opposed to the Town Hall construction project, has been continuously thwarted by the actions of the majority of the Trustees, which led to the recent resignation of Township Attorney, Joseph Gottemoller.

The continued refusal of the majority of the Grafton Township Trustees may well lead to additional litigation against the Township in order that the residents may see certain financial and other documents relating to various expenditures over the past 4 years.

James Bishop, attorney for the Plaintiffs in the “town hall” litigation has recently filed a Freedom of Information request with the Township Clerk, Dina Frigo, and has indicated that should the Trustees continue to refuse to provide such financial documentation, another lawsuit will be forthcoming.

Among financial documentation sought by Bishop are annual

• Township audits for the years 2006-2009,
• monthly bank statements, check registers,
• contracts relating to the sale of the existing township property,
• contracts and other documentation.

By law, the township is required to respond to Bishop’s FOI request early next week.

= = = = =
Seen at the Grafton Township meeting when attorney Joe Gottemoller rendered his resignation are, from left to right, Township Clerk Dina Frigo, Township Trustees Rob LaPorta, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon. Trustee Barbara Murphy has her back to the camera. Township Supervisor Linda Moore was medically indisposed. If you wish, you can read Gottemoller’s parting advice to the board.