McHenry County Blog

Mike Mahon

Keith Nygren

Democratic Party candidate for McHenry County Sheriff Mike Mahon has issued this statement:

“McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren appears to have a hard time getting into the spirit of Sunshine Week, which promotes openness in Illinois government.

“Yesterday, an unpaid private citizen and volunteer of my campaign delivered this campaign’s third Freedom of Information Act request, only to have Nygren call the volunteer into his office, berate him personally, repeatedly state that the Sheriff’s Office was ‘too busy’ to handle FOIAs, and threaten to file retaliatory FOIAs with my current employer for every FOIA his office received.

“It happened as follows:

“When the volunteer arrived at the Woodstock Government Center in Woodstock, Illinois, at about 11:30 a.m., to officially file an additional FOIA request, the volunteer was asked to wait.

“After about five minutes, Sheriff Nygren in person came out and asked to speak with the volunteer alone in his office. After reaching his office, he ‘ordered’ the volunteer to sit down and, visibly angry, proceeded to berate the volunteer about the campaign, about the volunteer’s professional background, and stated several times that his office was ‘too busy’ to handle FOIA requests.

“He also stated multiple times that for every FOIA request he received from the Mahon campaign, he would file a retaliatory FOIA request with my employer.

“Nygren’s boorish and unprofessional behavior aside, his statements indicate at the very least an attitude toward the Freedom of Information Act that could not possibly be more diametrically opposed to the spirit of Illinois’ new statute. J

“Just today in the current edition of the Northwest Herald paper there is an editorial titled ‘Government in Illinois still too secretive’ which discusses how this week is part of the national initiative called Sunshine Week, specifically designed to raise the awareness of the importance of open government. Obviously Keith Nygren didn’t get the memo.”

A complaint with all the specifics has been filed with the Public Access Counselor’s Office of the Illinois Attorney General.

For more information contact the Mike Mahon for Sheriff Campaign at 847.515.4772.

I have cited Huntley School District 158 as a model of transparency. I did so most recently for all to see at a Crystal Lake City Council meeting when I was perturbed that I could not find the council packet on the internet on the city’s brand-new web site.

I thought I got a favorable response, but last weekend I went looking for the information that the council folks had already received and there was nothing to be found.

Crysal Lake City Council

Asking City Manager Gary Mayerhofer about when it might happen, I was told that staff was ready, but waiting for direction from the council. Based on that representation, I didn’t ask again during the public comment section. If by the next meeting I attend it is not up, I shall, as you would expect, make mention of it again.

In any event, the Huntley School District was the web site I pointed to as what I hoped Crystal Lake would emulate.

But outside of the board packet’s posting, the Huntley School District is no model of transparency, even though outgoing School Board President Shawn Green represented as such.

Why would I say that?

While McHenry County government has been known to reply to a Freedom of Information request in less than 24 hours, the Huntley School District tends to take the pretty much the maximum amount of time allowed by law.

And, in the instance of my search for anyone employed by District 158 with a Special Education Director qualification, as defined by the Illinois State Board of Education, the term “dragging of the heels” is too mild to use.

On Monday, February 8th, I asked for the following:

“One document for each person having a special education director endorsement on their administrator’s certificate, as verified on the State Board of Education web site.”

The same day, FOI Officer Lori Woods replied,

“Are you requesting a copy of their certificate?

“If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.”

My reply:

“I really don’t care if it the certificate or something referring to the certificate. “

Woods:

“Okay, thanks.  I’ll get working on that ASAP for you.”

My reply:

“The basic question is whether anyone in the district has a certification to be a special ed director.

“I can’t find one.”

On Friday, February 12th, I received this reply from Woods:

“The response to your FOIA regarding documentation of Special Education Director endorsement is attached.

“If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.”

That certainly is within the five-workday returned turnaround time, but consider the answer from Human Resources Director Lauren Smith that was attached:

The parsed word response of Huntley Human Services Director Lauren Smith. Note that it took her only nine minutes to formulate her answer. Click to enlarge.

Huntley School District Human Relations Director Lauren Smith

“I am not clear how to move forward on this request. Based solely on the question, I cannot provide a document for all persons with an endorsement as a special education director.”

Smith’s parsing of my words reminds me of President Bill Clinton’s:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Being the persistent type, I filed a new Freedom of Information request on Friday, February 12th, saying,

“It seems to me that my Special Ed certification request was pretty clear, clear enough to ask the IL AG’s office in an appeal and get a letter sent to District 158 the way one was recently sent to Grafton Township officials.  Instead, for a very brief time (I do not promise to wait 5 days, just to delay until the thought of an appeal enters my head again), let me give you another chance with the re-wording of the question you see below:

“I request all documentation provided by the Regional Superintendents Office or State Board of Education that evidences each district employee who holds or has held a Special Education Director endorsement during the 2009 – 2010 fiscal year, including any employee who was employed by the district in FY 2009 – 2010, and any certificate or copy thereof of in possession of the district that evidences the referenced employees’ holding or having held the referenced endorsement.

“A simple ‘We have no record of any such evidence that a Special Ed Director Endorsement has been held by any of our employees during Fiscal Year 2009-2010′ will suffice, if that is the situation.” (Emphasis added.)

Seven days later, I received this reply:

“The response to your FOIA for Special Education Director endorsement is attached.

“If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.”

Now, Human Resources Director Smith has discovered,

It took twelve days to get this answer. Click to enlarge.

Very interrresssting.

“Upon review of certified staff members, including administrators, there is not an employee as of this date with a Director of Special Education endorsement.”

Ver-r-r-r-y in-ter-r-r-r-r-es-s-s-t-ing, as the Laugh-In Nazi would say.

Not that I think Green had any knowledge of the games his staff was playing, but I would point out this answer was received the day after Green praised the district’s transparency.

It was not received before I got fed up at not having receiving a timely answer to my question of February 8th, though.

I would suggest the kiddie games evident above are unworthy of a local government aspiring to be known as a “model of transparency.”

= = = = =

The 800 number of the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access folks is 877-299-3642, by the way.  Complaints may be filed by email.  The email address is PublicAccess@AtG.State.IL.US.

Considering the front page story in the Northwest Herald last week about there being one supervisor for every three deputies, I thought readers might be interested in what the supervisors get paid.

The following information was obtained through a Freedom of Information request from the Sheriff’s Department by challenger Zane Seipler’s campaign. It is posted at his secondary web site, MCSDExposed (for “McHenry County Sheriff’s Department Exposed,” I guess), but is no longer on its front page.

The 2009 Wage Report for MCSD was provided today via FOIA request. Keith Nygren’s salary was $149,259.32, a $5000 increase from last year. Listed below are the twenty four other deputy supervisors and the EEO.

• Under Sheriff Eugene Lowery $136,544.37
• Sergeant Porfirio Campos-Cruz $83,461.62
• Lieutenant Donald Carlson $97,580.59
• Sergeant Duane Cedegren $93,544.91
• Sergeant Michael Cisner $98,137.88
• Captain Anton Cundiff $107,519.33
• Sergeant Alex Embry $89,513.35
• Sergeant Karen Groves $87,891.53
• Sergeant Carolyn Hubbard $89,573.22
• Sergeant Donald Kalenick $85,544.37
• Sergeant John Koziol $99,558.30
• Lieutenant William Lutz $99,363.05
• Lieutenant John Miller $105,141.26
• Sergeant Kenneth Nielsen $92,378.49
• Sergeant Daniel Patenaud $88,171.19
• Sergeant Anthony Penna $98,320.79
• Sergeant James Popovits $101,143.16
• Sergeant Greg Pyle $94,183.61
• Sergeant Daniel Reineking $98,510.24
• Sergeant Steve Schmitt $90,072.54
• EEO Kathleen Seith $93,276.86
• Captain David Shepherd $120,966.40
• Sergeant James Wagner $92,968.84
• Lieutenant Andrew Zinke $103,835.64

Summary:

• 17 supervisors increased there yearly income, 7 decreased or remained the same.
• Largest increases in yearly salary goes to Lowery +$10,000, Shepherd +$12,000 and Embry +$15,000
• Largest decreases in yearly salary goes to Cedegren -$4,000 and Carlson -$3,000

Shawn Green is president of Huntley School Board 158.

In that position, he is the one to whom appeals of Freedom of Information request are directed.

And, that’s what I did.

A story yesterday told of my effort to spring loss a couple of memos about Read 1 80.

Last night I got a call from Green saying that he had approved the release of what I was looking for, assuming that it could be found among the large number of documents in the shared computer files that popped up when “Read 180” was used as search words.

That’s progress.

I’ve been filing Freedom of Information requests with local, state and federal government entities for a couple of decades.

I have never received a reply such as the one I just got from Huntley School District 158.

I had submitted my second request for memos relating to the two reading programs which Special Ed Moms don’t think will of much help to their children, but could be useful to kids in the regular education program.

The first, contained within a multi-subject request, didn’t catch the attention of District 158 enough to even be mentioned in the reply.

Being more patient than most people give me credit for—hey, what choice does someone dealing with government have?—I filed a second FOI request asking for the same memos.

Now, I have received the following reply:

“We are unable to comply with your request for ‘memos previously requested concerning Real 180 and System 44′ as the request is too vague.  Further information is needed (dates of memos, name(s) of person(s) to whom and from whom the memo is address, pertinent information contained in the memorandum, etc.) in order to comply with your request.“

If almost sounds as if I must have a copy of the memos before I can get a copy of the memos.

I have appeal that denial to School Board President Shawn Green. In my appeal, I wrote,

“It is my belief that there are two such memos, which it seems to me could be found by an FOI officer by sending my request to those who have been involved in the purchase of these programs. Or, if you have a centralized computer records system, just searching it using those two identifiers as search items.

“If your staff cannot find these memos or, if you deny my appeal, I shall refile my request after January 1st and see how the newly amended law works.”

Starting in the new year, disputes can be referred to the Illinois Attorney General for resolution.

Anyone able to help me make that request more specific than the one that has so far been denied, please email me at the address at the upper left of McHenry County Blog.

The Huntley School District 158 Board room was packed Thursday at 7 PM.

The only two empty seats were that of Board President Shawn Green and board member Kim Skaja. Skaja showed up after missing the academic spotlight and almost all of the parents’ public comments.  Green was absent, having told me that he would participate by phone if the special education agenda item were to be considered.

The parents’ advisory committee meeting on special ed had started at 6. It received record attendance. (Seen above are some of those who attended the July 14th meeting of the same committee.)

Many special ed teachers were in attendance.

At issue were staffing recommendations that has caseloads close to the legal maximum limit, for example, for speech pathologists in five schools.

The plan proposed by the administration for formal adoption has the burden being placed on individual teachers to prove they have too large of a caseload before adequate staffing is considered to meet the needs of the children.

“Prove it! with you doing all of the work” is apparently Human Resources Chief Lauren Smith’s new idea of working together and “collaborating” with the teachers.

The first item discussed by Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz was her suggestion to not have a December 10th parents advisory committee meeting.

She asked for a show of hands of those favoring not having the meeting.

The only hands raised were the administrators’.

When then asked how many wanted to have the meeting, a roomful of hands went up.

The attempt to gain approval to cancel the meeting at which the Federal stimulus ARRA IDEA spending would be discussed with parents failed. Apparently, their kids education was considered more important than Christmas parties.

One parent in 158, who is a special ed teacher in another district, made this point about the reading programs proposed to be financed with Federal funds:

“What are we doing to make sure it’s being implemented properly?”

When Kalkirtz seemed to try to brush off the point, wanting to move onto a different topic, a Special Ed Mom from the back of the room spoke up:

“I don’t think you heard what she was saying!”

It was fairly obvious from comments made by some of the teachers that this may have been the only time all of these teachers were in a room and asked or allowed to voice their opinions and ask questions about how the $1.6 million dollars should be spent.

It certainly did not appear that administrators had asked the teachers for their input on the revised list of expenditures.

Strange that teachers may have to attend public meetings if they want to “collaborate” with administrators on a group basis. Wouldn’t you think that would be included in the union contract?

Parents learned that, contrary to what Supt. John Burkey said at the previous board meeting, 60 Read 180 licenses had already been purchased for Heineman school. (When Burkey challenged a Special Ed Mom to file a Freedom of Information request on the topic the Thursday before last, I did. I’ll let you know when I get the response.)

The Moms knew this because, apparently as part of class time, a special ed student was assigned to unpack the boxes which were stacked up in a special ed room.

In addition, a special ed student received the Read 180 materials to take home so the parents could see what was going to be used for that student.

More tomorrow.

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.

During the Crystal Lake City Council’s send off of the Crystal Lake Park District’s proposal to purchase Viking Dodge, this little thought entered my mind.  For the article about the council meeting, see

Crystal Lake City Council Lights Park District Viking Funeral Pyre

Since no purchase of property was being contemplated, I could probably obtain the appraisals of the sites being considered besides Viking Dodge.

I filed my little Freedom of Information form (literally half the size of every other governmental entity) and was provided with appraisals for the following locations:

• Oak Manufacturing (at least that’s what I’ll always call it), the old manufacturing building at the southeast corner of East Crystal Lake Avenue and Main Street
• Parts of the Immanuel Lutheran Church property between Crystal Lake Central High School and the shopping center with the Jewel grocery store
• Viking Dodge

For the life of me, I don’t know why the three locations could have not been made public from the day Viking Dodge was selected.

= = = = =
Graphics by Alan Showalter, creator of One Heck of a Guy blog.

I just got charged $5 apiece for two DVD’s of the Crystal Lake City Council meeting last spring when the board voted to hike the city sales tax by 75%.

Compare that to Huntley School District 158’s providing the first DVD requested free and each subsequent one 50 cents.

Kudos for the willingness of District 158 to allow taxpayers and media inexpensive access to what goes on at its meetings.

And, I guess I should mention that after years of sending me Certified Letters (now costing $5.54 each) to tell me a Freedom of Information request is ready or denied, I got a phone call last time saying that the Metra Ridgefield train station documents I requested were ready for inspection.

A phone call really will suffice.

Know what you see above?

It’s the bottom of the spreadsheet sent me by the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office showing how much money has been spent on outside lawyers since September 1997 because of the 1993 murder of Morris and Ruth and the subsequent arrest, conviction, appeal, etc., of Gary Gauger. Here’s a summary of the case on the web site of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern Law.

McHenry County State’s Attorney Gary Pack prosecuted the case, convicting Gauger. He was sentenced to death by Judge Henry Cowlin on January 11, 1994.

Northwestern University Law Professor Lawrence C. Marshall agreed to appeal the case to the 2nd Appellate Court. Here’s what the Center says,

“In an unpublished opinion written by Judge S. Louis Rathje, with Judges Robert D. McLaren and Fred A. Geiger concurring, the court held that the statements were the fruit of an arrest made without probable cause and therefore should not have been admitted at the trial. Without the confession.

“McHenry County State’s Attorney Gary W. Pack had no choice but to drop the charges, and set Gary free.”

Pack, the article continues, didn’t accept the reversal and kept suggested Gauger was guilty of the crime.

In 1997, the Feds in Wisconsin indicted Outlaw motorcycle gang members for the murder. One plead guilty in 1998. Another was convicted in 2000.

In something of an understatement, the Center writes,

“Pack’s position was severely undermined” by the arrests.

In 2002, Governor George Ryan pardoned Gary Gauger. The pardon was based on innocence.

As readers know, Gauger sued McHenry County and the deputies who interrogated him and lost the case.

Some have suggested the jurors in the recent trial, many in my age bracket, might have been thinking they as taxpayers would have had to pick up the tab, if the found in Gauger’s favor.

But the figures above show that $1,218,662.49 of our tax money has already been spent. The amount spent is actually almost $531,000 higher, but that amount has been reimbursed to county government from insurance companies like Insurance Company of the West (ICW) and includes $103,869 from Lloyds of London. (ICW is the firm who got stuck with paying $5 million to Indeck, the gas generating company that wanted zoning near the intersection of Routes 176 and 47. Needless to say, ICW is not inclined to pay voluntarily and is being sued by the county for further reimbursements of legal expenses.)

Below are the amounts spent by year. This information was provided pursuant to a Freedom of Information request. (The county’s fiscal year actually runs from Dec. 1st through Nov. 30th, but I have used the year in which eleven of the months fall for simplicity’s sake. Numbers have been rounded up to the nearest dollar. The first number represents legal fees, the second miscellaneous expenses.)

• 1997 – $135
• 1998 – $22,547 + $9,180
• 1999 – $49,167 + $13,989
• 2000 – $71,014 + $38,048
• 2001 – $84,168 + $22,332
• 2002 – $56,668 + $2,983
• 2003 – $62,383 + $3,750
• 2004 – $42,630 + $39,112
• 2005 – $23,490 + $1,346
• 2006 – $17,738 + $3,987
• 2007 – $63,779 +$47,716
• 2008 – $61,579 + $59,817
• 2009 – $118,773 +$1,725 (though July)

All of the above seems to have resulted from legal work performed by James Sotos and his associates.

In addition, there was $158,098 paid to the law firm of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood and McArdle from 2004 though July of 2009.

The trial was in August, so the total cost to taxpayers is not complete. And, there will undoubtedly be an appeal.