McHenry County Blog

Cathy Ferguson

McHenry County Board Chairwoman Tina Hill got her way on who will be appointed to the McHenry County 708 Mental Health Board Tuesday night.

But she backed away from dumping Sandy Salgado from the Public Health and Human Services Committee and replacing her with fellow District 4 Board member Bob Martens.

At the beginning of the meeting, Hill gave her version of what happened leading up to the public controversy on which her opponents framed the issue because none of Hill’s supporters explained on the Board floor why they rejected the Committee’s recommendation.

The vote was 16-8 for Ferguson, about the same as the 18-6 vote Hill enjoyed when her coalition defeated the nomination of former McHenry County College Board President Scott Summers two weeks ago.

Hill explained that she started to get questions about what the Committee was doing, about the 4-3 vote and the Executive Session [for discussing the qualities of the nominees].

When the Committee nomination failed 18-6, Hill said she knew that had to do something.  Those are not her exact words, but I believe them to be a fair representation of what she said.

Because she moved immediately after the vote two weeks ago to assert the power given her by State law to make the nomination herself, however, it was obvious that the move was previously planned and not a reaction to the vote.

Tina Hill

There was lots of talk about conspiracy, with those who voted with Hill two weeks ago denying it and Mike Walkup wondering if a cover-up were occurring.   He said that was the public perception.

“If we’re not,we’re doing a pretty good job of [making it look like one is],” he said.

Walkup also said that he had heard that Hill had met with Interim 708 Board Executive Director Todd Schroll.

“If conversations like that can happen, that’s a really big problem…having the person [being hired helping pick the person who will pick the Executive Director].

Walkup told of other counties that have “a boss system.”

“We’re now sliding in the direction toward a boss system.”

He and others argued that financial acumen was what was needed now on the 708 Board. while supporters of Ferguson praised her knowledge of the care giving side of mental health services.

Hill said she had called Salgado and “offered her an apology.”

Diane Evertson and Mike Walkup.

“I never thought there was a conflict-of- interest,” Hill asserted, although Northwest Herald reporter Kevin Craver reported that having Salgado employed by as agency (Pioneer Center) which got money from the 708 Board was “the epitome of conflict of interest.”

“I meant the appearance of impropriety,” Hill said Tuesday night.

“I agree with the State’s Attorney there is no conflict of interest.”

Later in the meeting Diane Evertson seemed to startle Hill when she inquired if Hill might have a conflict-of-interest.

“You mean that my son receives services [from Pioneer Center]?”

“That’s the exact question that we have with Ms. Salgado and Jim Heisler.”  [Heisler's wife works for Pioneer Center.]

Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Kelly was asked for her opinion.

“That’s the first I’ve heard of this,” she replied from the audience.

Hill seemed incredulous, asking how one could “construe that Cathy would do my bidding.”

“You recommend a candidate who funnels money to an organization where your son receives services,” Evertson replied.

“Don’t you see a conflict?”

“No,” Hill replied.

Those supporting Hill’s nomination for Crystal Lake City Councilwoman Cathy Ferguson follow:

• Michele Aavang
• Sue Drafkorn
• Joe Gottemoller
• Jim Heisler
• Tina Hill
• John Jung
• Ken Koehler
• Bob Martens
• Mary McCann
• Mary McClellan
• Anna May Miller
• Bob Nowak
• Nick Provenzano
• Sandy Salgado
• Carolyn Schofield
• Paula Yensen

Those not supporting Ferguson’s nomination were

• Yvonne Barnes
• Nick Chirikos
• John Hammerand
• Donna Kurtz
• Ersel Schuster
• Mike Skala
• Mike Walkup

Moving out of the Hill coalition of two weeks ago were Yvonne Barnes, Ersel Schuster and Mike Skala.

Moving into it by supporting Ferguson was Sandra Salgado.

About ninety public officials and citizens attended McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s Ethics Seminar Thursday night at McHenry County College.

The State’s Attorney’s Ethics Seminar.

Speakers and their topis were

• Matt Rogina from the Attorney General’s office spoke on the Illinois Freedom of Information Act
• Jana Blake from the State’s Attorney’s office spoke on Open Meetings
• Donna Kelly from the State’s Attorney’s office spoke on the Illinois Public Officials Prohibited Activities Act.

Donna Kelly

I ask McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi what his office was going to do on Election Day.  Here’s the answer:

“Donna Kelly, Chief of our Civil Division is available throughout the day to handle calls from any precinct, citizen and from oue County Clerk.

“We also have 5 teams (of 2)  that will be traveling and visiting precincts from 8:15 until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow and  can assist in handling any complaints.

“We have three investigators available to respond to calls.”

The number to call is 815.334.4159.

There was a long debate over whether the County Board should put a referendum on the fall ballot asking voters is they wanted to elect the County Board Chairman in an at-large election.

Before that several citizens provided input.

District 5 Republican candidate Michale Rein was asking, “Where’s the money going to be coming from?” as I arrived a bit late.

“Outside interests” was his answer to the rhetorical question.

“We’re going to end up with a career political [running McHenry County],” he added.

Earlier I posted the comments that Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore offered.

By putting such a powerful official over McHenry County government, she sees the possibility of conflict similar to that in Grafton Township.

And that’s what Jack Franks’ County Executive form of government seems to be all about.

The alternative of having a competing referendum asking,

“Shall the Chairman of the McHenry County Board be elected at-large by the voters?”

on the ballot was rejected by a 16-3 vote. Only Randy Donley, Virginia Peschke and Paula Yensen voted to place it on the ballot.

Members attending the meeting to consider a resolution to put a referendum on the ballot to allow voters to elect the McHenry County Board Chairman. Only three voted in favor.

The majority seemed to think that they stood a better chance to defeat the Franks’ proposal to shift from a Parliamentary form of government to a very strong Executive form of government if a somewhat similar sounding question were not on the ballot to muddy the waters.

And the majority clearly did not want to lose the power they now have.

Even Bob Anderson, in the room to promote his own anti-double-dipping advisory referendum, took a shot at Franks:

“If Jack Franks were doing his job, he would be addressing like this.”

Jack Franks wasn’t invited to the meeting, but his ears must have been burning.

Democrat Kathy Bergan Schmidt opposed Franks’ proposal,  calling it “a Trojan Horse.”

“We can deal with this question on our own.”

A former candidate for County Board Chairman, Virginia Peschke said, “I don’t support Mr. Franks form of government,” while expressing her support for electing the Chairman in an at-large election.

It was suggested that if both referendum passed, the County Executive one would have precedence.

Later, Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Kelly stated that the Statute “does not address the situation when you have dueling referendums.”

Marc Munaretto wanted to know if the Franks’ question could be withdrawn if the at-large election of the County Board question were put on the ballot.

“This is not Jack Franks’ petition.  He has not control over it after he handed it in…Why are we taking any time discussing it?”Kathy Bergan Schmidt asked.

[There is some disagreement with regard to Schmidt's opinion.]

“I do not support the County Executive form of government,” the man who twice ran unsuccessfully against Ken Koehler for County Board Chairman, said.

Sandy Salgado told of taking to some folks in her precinct.

“I have a feeling it’s going to pass.”

Later Virginia Peschke agree.

“We’re going to have a hard time defeating it. ”

She told of talking over a twelve-month period with Winnebago’s at-large County Board Chairman Chris Cohen.

“I didn’t find many objections.  I think many of these things are bogeymen.”

“I’m in concurrence with Kathy Bergan Schmidt’s opposition to the County Executive form of government…It gives unlimited power to that position…I do not support Mr. Franks’ referendum.”

Yensen indicated what was needed was term limits for the McHenry County Board Chairman, as did the head of the Management Services Committee, Ersel Schuster.

She also pointed out that a “countywide race for that position would be very expensive.”

She estimated candidates spent $100,000 on the campaign to become the at-large elected Chairman of the Kane County Board.

Mary Donner was suspicious about Rep. Franks’ timing, she indicated while expressing agreement with Schmidt view that putting a second referendum on the ballot would be confusing.

“I certainly do not support the Executive form of government,” Randy Donley said when he gained the floor.  He made it clear, however, he supported electing the County Board Chairman at-large.

Donley expressed the opinion that Franks would be willing to take his question off the ballot, if the County Board put the at-large referendum on the ballot.

Except for the comment to the left and recognizing people to speak, County Board Chairman Ken Koehler was silent during the meeting.

Donley asked how many had called him.

Jim Heisler, Paula Yensen, and Mary Donner said they had, although Yensen later said she had talked to him in person with others being present.

“I do not know at this time the motivation of Mr. Franks.”

“We’ve sent numerous letters to him saying we’ll set a Special Meeting when he wants to come,” County Board Chairman Ken Koehler interjected.

Announcing her intent to push for Term Limits again, Schuster said, “I find it mind boggling that a State Representative would act in this manner.”

Scott Breeden said his opposition to at-large elections was based on how the expense of the campaign wold limit “the number of qualified people.”

He pointed out that currently the Chairman “owes responsibility to the County Board members.”

Donna Kurtz said she supported Term Limits, as well as an at-large elected Chairman.

“A County Executive is so onerous,” she continued, “such a huge threat to the democratic process [because it puts] such an unprecedented amount of power and control down to the [lowest] employee.”

She pointed out a County Executive would have the power to hire its own attorney and “that will wreck havoc with legal fees.”

Kurtz said she thought having two referendums on the ballot would “confuse the issue.”

“If anyone doesn’t think there isn’t political influence in the way we now select the County Board Chairman, [he's wrong],” Peschke said.

“I’d like to know why this discussion didn’t occur prior to his getting the signatures,” Yensen said, pointing out that those petitions had set “a fire under us.”

John Hammerand probed as to whether the County Executive form of government, once approved, could be changed by putting another referendum on the ballot.

The answer seemed to be that a repeal referendum could be put on the ballot in 2014, but that would be the first election for a County Executive, so he or she would have at least one term in office.

Below are photos supplied by Ken Koehler’s re-election campaign.

State Rep. Mike Tryon and Lakewood Village President Erin Smith are helping prepare the food.

Mike Tryon and County Board candidate Mike Skala seem to be on the kitchen crew.

Ken Koehler welcomes State Rep. Kent Gaffney.

Ken Koehler and Mike Skala greet Assistant State's Attorney Donna Kelly and State's Attorney Lou Bianchi.

Ken Mike Tryon discuss matters in the kitchen with host Jerry Schain while Ken Koehler and Mike Skala listen.

Kent Gaffney fills his plate.

Ken Koehler poses with Kane County Board Chairman Karen McConnaughay (right), State Senator Pam Althoff (to his right) with Conor Brown of the Illinois Association of Realtors to Althoff's right.

Zane Seipler

Zane Seipler won a victory over former employer Sheriff Keith Nygren Thursday.

Nygren is the man who fired Seipler and against whom Seipler ran unsuccessfully in the Republican primary election almost two years ago, plus filed a wrongful termination action in Federal Court and an appeal to an arbitrator under his union’s contract on which he has prevailed on three levels so far.

The judge in the case, Thomas Meyer, is the same judge who ruled that Nygren should follow an arbitrator’s order and re-hire Seipler.  That ruling has been upheld by the Appellate Court, but Nygren has appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Judge Meyer reversed his ruling to allow Nygren’s participation in Seipler’s effort to get a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possibility of criminal wrong-doing on the part of the Sheriff.  Previously, he has indicated that he didn’t know if he had made the correct decision.

Meyer had allowed Nygren to participate in the case in which Seipler was seeking the naming of a Special Prosecutor to probe, to put it in Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz’ words after the Thursday hearing,

• felony theft
• official misconduct
• misappropriation of funds

Horwitz alleged the crime Nygren committed was “stealing public money to promote [his] private interest [that is, Nygren's campaign].”

“That is not a dispute about points on a star anymore than mail fraud is about “putting a stamp on a letter.”

There were seven attorneys in Judge Meyer’s courtroom with an interest in the case.

Four took part in the proceedings:

• Nygren’s personal attorney Mark Gummerson
• Gummerson associate Rebecca Lee
• Special Assistant State’s Attorney William Caldwell
• Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz

In addition, two attorneys were watching the proceedings:

• Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Kelly, the person who advised State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi in his deposition and
• Don Leist, now working for Nygren in the capacity of Equal Opportunity Employment Officer with “other duties as may be specifically assigned to the EEO by the Sheriff, included but not limited to performing any mandated or permitted function of action allowed to be performed by the EEO or by the Sheriff,” according to the job solicitation.

In addition, attorney Robert Hanlon, who represented Seipler at the last hearing, was in attendance.

Keith Nygren

Also in the room were Nygren, sitting next to his new in-house attorney and Seipler, who sat behind Nygren.  The Sheriff left the room after the Judge ruled against his continued participation in the case.

Much of the day’s arguments were about difficult to understand civil practice questions.  The technicalities were pretty impossible to follow without the statutory citations.

Resolving them leads to “the last stage of the case,” Horwitz explained.  “We’ve gotten through all the procedural hurdles,” characterizing the almost two-year case as “not ordinary litigation.”

Prior to rendering his decision, Meyer said, “I have [had] serious concern about the direction in which case is going, but that has been resolved.”

The Judge then said, “I have no alternative but to strike Sheriff Nygren’s [ability to intervene].”

Efforts by Caldwell to argue that the merits (or lack thereof) of any criminal case and that the issue should be settled in the political arena were short-circuited by the Court, who was determined to stick to whether the State’s Attorney’s position matched those which would allow the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

“I’m not going to investigate the Sheriff,” Meyer said, indicating that would be the job of a Special Prosecutor, if one were appointed.

Caldwell made his point, indicating he wanted to preserve the issue for appeal purposes.

Blake Horwitz

Horwitz summarized Bianchi’s position that he would not investigate Nygren because, if he did, those suing the Sheriff or his Deputies could claim the State’s Attorney had a conflict, forcing Bianchi to hire outside attorneys a practice he promised to virtually eliminate when he ran for his office seven years ago.

Horwitz also pointed out that by appointing the Appellate Prosecutor as the Special Prosecutor it would cost county taxpayers no more than they are already paying.

After considering the arguments in chambers, Judge Meyer denied another motion to dismiss Seipler’s case observing,

“[We're] probably at a point where we can move to a resolution of this matter.”

“A decision on the merits?” Caldwell asked.

That was what the Judge had decided.

Attorneys will return in January and February.

“We don’t want a motion for sanctions hanging over our heads,” Gummerson interjected, saying, “We’re ready to argue [now].”

Lee referred to a second motion for sanctions which she said was “clearly on is face designed to harass Mr. Gummerson.”

The Judge gave time to everyone to reply to the others’ motions, as well as to further brief the case, if they wished.

Such arguments should be limited to “the statutes,” Judge Meyer said.

The Judge ordered that parties to the Bianchi deposition be given a copy of the audio recording.

Keith Nygren

Lou Bianchi

McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi could be ordered to tell the public whether he ever investigated Sheriff Keith Nygren for “criminal conduct,” if Blake Horwitz, Zane Seipler’s attorney in his effort to get Judge Thomas Meyer to name a Special Prosecutor to probe whether Nygren used taxpayer resources to advance his campaign, gets his wish.

In a motion filed Friday, Horwitz cited the following unanswered question from Bianchi’s recent deposition:

Q – During the time period that you’ve been a state’s attorney for McHenry County, has your office ever investigated criminal conduct attributable — or allegations of criminal conduct attributable to Sheriff Nygren? [Emphasis added.]

MS. KELLY: Objection, Judge — Objection, relevance.

Blake Horwitz

MR. CALDWELL: Objection, way outside the scope of what the judge just told us. We’re here on Section 9008.

MR. GUMMERSON: I would agree and join in the objection.

MS. KELLY: Don’t answer that question.

MR. HORWITZ: You’re not going to let him answer?

MS. KELLY: No.

MR. HORWITZ: Okay.

“The question was never answered,” Horwitz notes in his motion.

“Petitioner believes that this Court instructed the parties to inquire whether the Office of State’s Attorney can and/or does investigate and/or prosecute the Office of the Sheriff. The pending question is directed at ascertaining the answer of this information.

“Petition requests a ruling on whether this question must be answered and if so then to direct the State’s Attorney to answer the question posited.”

This is the final section of a long article about the deposition of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, primarily by former Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler.

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

Part 3 is here.

Seipler has filed suit asking for a Special Prosecutor to be named to investigate whether Sheriff Keith Nygren used taxpayer dollars to advance his political campaign.

The court reporter was taking down what Bianchi and four attorneys said.

The attorneys were

• Blake Horwitz, Seipler’s attorney
• Donna Kelly, Bianchi’s advisor for the questioning
• Bill Caldwell, representing McHenry County interests
• Mark Gummerson, Nygren’s personal attorney

In addition, Nygren and Seipler were in the room.

Blake Horwitz

Horwitz came up with this question: “…do you believe as State’s Attorney that to represent the Sheriff civily in civil cases while at the same time investigating the Sheriff for criminal activity would give rise to a conflict pursuant to Illinois law?”

More objections.

Bianchi: “It may.”

Horwitz: “Okay. Can you explain what you mean by ‘may,’ please?”

Bianchi did not come up with a further explanation.

Horwitz: “What would be the nature, what is the nature of the conflict that could arise?”

Bianchi: “I can only explain it in terms of the petition that was filed…And I think I have given that answer several times.”

Another attempt to elicit more information from Bianchi resulted in this answer:

“Again, after I read the petition, I made no determination but I was concerned.

Lou Bianchi

“We’ve had a great track record here.“We’ve won almost every case for the Sheriff. We’ve settled one or two at nominal, 2,000, 3,000. I don’t want to jeopardize that.

“I don’t want to make a decision.

“I don’t know what the judge would do.

“I don’t want to jeopardize our successful representation of the Sheriff in not only civil suits filed for him, in all those criminal cases, the murder cases, the traffic cases, the DUIs, all those cases we’ve represented. I don’t want to jeopardize that.

“The cost to the taxpayers and the bottom end should that ever happen could be millions of dollars.“

Horwitz: “Okay. I’m going to ask one more time; and if you’re unwilling to answer my question, I may ask the judge to…”

Bianchi: “I’m willing to answer any question.”

Horwitz: “I’m asking you if you can give me an example of what you understand as a conflict with regards to representing the Sheriff at the present time in civil cases and the pending petition to appoit a special prosecutor. What would the conflict be? What’s the conflict that you foresee could exist, reasonably foresee?”

Bianchi: “It would be the same answer I’ve given several times.”

Horwitz: “Respectfully, I do not believe it has been answered adequately. And, if I understand that…”

Bianchi: “I’m dong my best.”

Horwitz: “Okay. That’s fine. So I’ll decide what I’m going to do in that regard.”

Animosity was more than evident as the deposition ended. It was mainly attorney Mark Gummerson versus Blake Horwitz with Bill Caldwell saying at one point, “All right. Time-out, girls, time-out.”

“I’ll take it up with the judge, if I choose to,” Horwitz concluded.

Mark Gummerson, personal attorney for McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren took over the questioning in the deposition of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi.

This is the third part of a four-part article concerning that despoliation which Judge Thomas Meyer ordered to try to clear up whether the State’s Attorney was available to prosecute Nygren.

In the room were

• Lou Bianchi,McHenry County States Attorney
• Keith Nygren, McHenry County Sheriff
• Zane Seipler, who filed suit to appoint a Special Prosecutor to probe Nygren’s alleged use of tax dollars for campaign purposes
• Mark Gummerson, personal attorney for Nygren
• Bill Caldwell, Special Assistant State’s Attorney representing County government
• Donna Kelly, Assistant State’s attorney advising Bianchi in the deposition
• Blake Horwitz, attorney for Seipler

Gummerson asks if Bianchi has been sick or absent from his office since Seipler’s petition was filed, conditions that would have prevented him from prosecuting the allegations.

Bianchi: “No.”

Gummerson: “…unable to attend to your duties..?”

Bianchi (after clarifying the question): “No.”

Gummerson: “…any personal interest in any of the allegations…?”

Horwitz interjects that Judge Thomas Meyer has specifically directed that “personal interest” not be a subject of the deposition.

At this point Kelly asked to speak with her client Bianchi and a short recess ensued.

Resuming, Kelly said her reading of the court order went to “any purported animus” between the State’s Attorney and the Sheriff as opposed to the part of the statute to which Gummerson was referring.

Horwitz pointed out that the Judge had excluded “personal interest” as an issue in the case.

Bianchi’s answer: “To the best of my knowledge, no.”

Horwitz had additional questions at this point.

“If it’s your job to put the bad guys away, then why is it you won’t look into the allegations attributable to Sheriff Nygren that are outline in the petition for the appointment of a special prosecutor?”

Three objections were made and Caldwell advised Bianchi not to answer the question.

Bianchi did not answer the question.

There was some more fencing before Horwitz asked this question:

“Is is accurate to say that it’s part of your job as the State’s Attorney of McHenry County to discern whether or not you can investigate a public official?”

Bianchi: “If the question comes up.”

Horwitz: “In this case has the question come up attributable to Sheriff Nygren?”

Bianchi (after a round of objections): “As I mentioned, when the petition was filed, I read it. I made—I did not look at the merits. I made no decision as to the merits of it, and I made the decision not to investigate based on the reasons I’ve given before.”

After a bit more fencing by the three opposing attorneys, Horwitz phrased a final question: “Did the question come up relative to whether or not a public official should be investigated when you reviewed the petition to appoint a special prosecutor concerning Sheriff Nygren?”

Bianchi: “I don’t recall.’

Trying again, Horwitz asked (with more objections being stated), “Is it part of your job as the McHenry County State’s Attorney to determine whether or not the office of the McHenry County State’s Attorney should investigate or prosecute the sitting Sheriff for McHenry County?”

Bianchi (after more objections): “It is my job to review any allegations against any elected or appointed official.”

Horwitz: “Is it part of your job as well to decide not to investigate or prosecute a sitting official for McHenry County?”

More objections.

Bianchi: “That may be a decision I come to.”

Horwitz: “Is it also part of your job to choose not to investigate or prosecute the McHenry County Sheriff because you want to avoid conflicts?”

A brief recess in which Kelly conferred with her client Bianchi took place.

Bianchi: “I can’t. It’s too confusing…It’s just I don’t understand it.”

Re-phrased, Bianchi gave substantially the same answer he had since the beginning that he didn’t want to jeopardize the taxpayers’ interests by probing the Sheriff’s Office.

Yesterday McHenry County Blog ran Part 1 of a long article on Zane Seipler’s lawyer Blake Horwitz’ questioning of McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi under oath.

Also present were attorneys Donna Kelly, representing Bianchi, Mark Gummerson, representing Keith Nygren personally, Bill Caldwell, representing McHenry County’s interests, plus Sheriff Keith Nygren and the man trying to get a Special Prosecutor appointed to probe whether he used taxpayer dollars on his campaign, former Deputy Sheriff and 2010 GOP primary candidate for Sheriff, Zane Seipler.

The February 14, 2011, letter referred to in the deposition. Click to enlarge.

After looking at what was said about “availability,” I decided just to start with the beginning of the questioning, Seipler attorney Horwitz asking them.

Horwitz starts the deposition with the letter dated Feb. 14, 2011.

That is followed by three pages of objections after which Horwitz says, “Let’s assume every objection on the planet’s going to enter on every question.”

When finally allowed to answer the question, Bianchi explains his campaign pledge to bring as much of the defense work for the County in-house, rather than by outside counsel, how it was saving taxpayers about $10,000 a week.

Horwitz elicited the information that the State’s Attorney’s Office was representing the Sheriff in February, 2011.

Horwitz focused on this sentence in the February letter:

“We want to make it clear that this Office of State’s Attorney has not and will not investigate the claims outline in Mr. Seipler’s petition.”

“…and your recent letter for the reasons stated above” ended the sentence and all three opposing attorneys objected to its exclusion from the question.

So, Horwitz asked Bianchi, “Do you have to include that…Is that part of the sentence? Is that a necessary corollary in your mind?”

Bianchi: “No.”

Lou Bianchi

Continuing, Bianchi explained what the sentence meant:

“When I reviewed the petition filed by Mr. Seipler, I did not review it and make any determination as the merits stated therein but I made a decision not to prosecute—not to investigate the Sheriff on these allegations—again, not having reviewed them on their merit—because I didn’t want to take the risk or chance that if we investigated the Sheriff, potentially someone in the future file a motion that would suggest that we were conflicted on any future cases.

“We’ve had a great deal of success representing the Sheriff. I did not want to jeopardize that if someone filed a motion saying we could no longer represent the Sheriff in the lawsuits against him or on his behalf or all the criminal cases that we represent the Sheriff in his—and the deputies. I didn’t want to take the chance that someone would be able to make that motion and jeopardize our ability to represent the Sheriff because I believe it would cost the county millions of dollars if that occurred.”

Horwitz asked if it were official policy not to investigate any of the allegations lodged by Seipler.

Bianchi: “We don’t have any specific written policy that says in this case we’re not going to. That’s the decision I made.”

Blake Horwitz

Horwitz broadened the question to include all investigations by all employees of the State’s Attorney’s Office, which led to another round of objections.

Afterward, Bianchi said, “The decision was made our office would not investigate those claims…My office won’t investigate.”

Horwitz asked if Bianchi might change his mind over the next six months.

Bianchi: “I don’t want to speculate…I don’t believe so.”

Apparently trying to pin down Bianchi’s plans, Horwitz asks, “Is it accurate to say that the Office of State’s Attorney will not investigate the merits behind the petition to appoint a special prosecutor?”

Bianchi: “I (expanded to include the entire office) have not in the past looked into the merits, and I don’t intend to in the future.”

At this point in the deposition, we reach the page I started with in which Bianchi refuses to comment on whether his office has investigated the Sheriff’s Office over the past seven years Bianchi has been State’s Attorney.

Horwitz probes a bit into th $10,000 a week savings figure, asking whether it was important to Bianchi to save the taxpayers that money.

Bianchi reiterates that it was a campaign pledge, not his job, then, says, “My job is to put the bad guys away.”

= = = = =
Part 3 Sunday.