Leitmotif of the Grafton Township Kangaroo Court – Part 2
Yesterday, McHenry County Blog started outlining what was mentioned about the court-determined illegal actions of the prior board–three of whose members were re-elected–in notes of the 7:30 PM to 12:15 AM Grafton Township board meeting last Thursday night.
The topic kept coming up in the discussion of the motion to add Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s name to that of newly-elected Trustee Gerry McMahon on the list of board members censured who have been censured.
Trustee Rob LaPorta, clearly the leader of the board majority, was among those to comment on the township hall lawsuit during the debate to move the censure resolution from the bottom to the top of the agenda:
“We were forced to hire an attorney because our names were on the lawsuit.”
McMahon returned to the court action brought by Grafton Township citizens, directing his comments to Moore:
“You started all of this by encouraging all this litigation against the township.
“You hurt the township. You should resign. You do not have a clue how to run a township.”
“We have to take responsibility for the decisions we make,” Moore replied.
“I admit I don’t think I made a good decision.
“Get over it.
“I don’t take kindly to your accusations,”
Barbara Murphy then said.
The reply from Moore,
“We can’t made decisions based on our legal (advice) alone. Just because a lawyer makes a recommendation doesn’t (mean it’s right).
“You believe what Mr. Kelly told you to do. Now, it turns out not to be the right thing to do.”
I have over four pages of notes on LaPorta’s reading of the condemnation resolution, but he was reading so fast, they are incomplete. After looking over the text sent to me by Trustee Rob LaPorta, I don’t see anything concerning the new township hall except Moore’s termination of Kelly as township attorney and her refusal to present his bill for payment.
But, my guess is those items stimulated the censure movement.
When it got to public comment time after the censure and paying of bills Tammy Lueth, a plaintiff in the suit to invalidate the board’s decision to build a new township hall, came to the podium with a stack of agendas and minutes.
“I’ve been through all the agendas for the last four years.”
She told of the decision at the annual meeting to approve the new township hall.
“You weren’t right.
“You took it upon yourself to appeal (Judge Michael Caldwell’s) decision. The Appellate Court ruled you guys didn’t do what you should have done.
“You spent more time bickering about $400 in chamber of commerce fees (than you did when it) took you six minutes to approve land acquisition.
“That was all brought about by the former supervisor (John Rossi) and some trustees.”
She added that she had to spend $12 in a Freedom of Information Act request to get minutes which ought to be on the web site.
Cutting Lueth’s comments short was McMahon, the only current trustee who did not vote for the new township hall and land acquisition:
“You’re into your three minutes.”
Trustee Betty Zirk, one of the three remaining trustees who supported the new township hall, pointed out the rules on the specificity of agendas changed in 2007.
“Now we have to be very specific,” she said.
McMahon returned to the undercurrent of the meeting:
“On some points you are right. What (attorney Jim) Kelly said to us was that he thought it was winnable.
“I’ve learned my lesson…
“I think you opened a can of worms and you hurt the township.”
McMahon then offer his opinion on the chances of passing the court-ordered referendum during next November’s general election:
“We can’t win a referendum. We will never get the PR out.”
The official part of the agenda when the discredited deal was next on the agenda.
Read about it tomorrow.
