McHenry County Blog

McHenry County Blog has obtained a copy of the transcript of the May 4th court hearing in the separation of powers suit brought by Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore last spring after the Township Trustees tried to strip her of virtually all of her power by giving it to a newly-appointed Township Administrator.

The main result was Judge Michael Caldwell’s slapping down that effort, plus dismissing the Township Attorney that Moore tried to fire, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer, a partner an the law firm of Ancel Glink.

The township officials continue to disagree, which requires continuing intervention by Judge Caldwell.

In a moment of levity not captured on the transcript, Judge Caldwell ended the hearing by saying,

“And the beat goes on.”

Caldwell also tried the case instigated by allies of Moore and including Moore as a plaintiff before she took office as Township Supervisor which ruled that the former Township Board had failed to provide adequate notice when they approved construction of a new township hall. His ruling was upheld by the 2nd Appellate Court.

In the early May court hearing, which you can read here, Caldwell ruled that the Township Trustees must approve Moore’s selection for Township Attorney. That choice is the Rockford attorney John Nelson, who won her separation of powers case against the Trustees.

Needless to say, the Trustees do not want to do so and after the Judge’s ruling, their attorney Ancel Glink litigator Thomas DiCianni asked for a stay of the order so that he could appear what he said was a separation of powers question to the Appellate Court.

The final part of the transcript is reproduced below:

Judge Michael Caldwell

THE COURT: While I’m not unsympathetic to some of the arguments made by Mr. DiCianni, I think the separation of powers question is probably a little overly broad to be applied directly to this particular dispute, primarily because we’re dealing with a unit of
local government.

We are not dealing with the United States of America where the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches is far more important than it is here at the local level.

I am also sensitive to the fact that courts should not be and I believe are prohibited ordinarily from interfering with the exercise of legislative discretion. I don’t want to get involved in the idea
that I have to tell the township that they have to approve this road or this contract or anything else.

I did not run for circuit judge for the purpose of being the township supervisor or the — or a township trustee. I have no interest in running this — this unit of local government.

However, this is a case pending before me in a court of equity. I do have the power to enjoin what I consider to be the continuing violation of a statute.

I believe — I don’t know — This is personal for me. This is a personal remark. I probably shouldn’t make it, but I don’t really know why you would want this job.

But that having been said, I believe the failure or refusal of the trustees to approve Mr. Nelson as the township attorney is merely a pretext to continue their ongoing dispute with Linda Moore, the township supervisor.

It will therefore be my order that at the next regular meeting of the town board that the trustees reported McMahon, Murphy, and Zirk approve the appointment of John Nelson as the township attorney. The fact that he disagrees with them or they with him quite frankly is one of the qualifications for the job.

I don’t come to this dispute or the issue of being an attorney for a local government without considerable experience in this arena, having served as a municipal attorney for 30 years, 25 of those with the City of Woodstock. If I had a reputation for one thing (indiscernible) of those years, it was my ability to tell the aldermen or councilmen of the City of Woodstock or really for that matter any other unit of government I represented, things they didn’t want to hear in the first place.

So I don’t regard the ongoing dispute as being a conflict of interest that would bar Mr. Nelson from serving.

That will be my order.

I want the trustees mentioned by name in any draft order that you give.

Now, I also advise– Somebody is going to have to advise these people if they don’t follow it– They are free not to follow it, but that will activate contempt proceedings.

MR. DICIANNI: Well, I would — I suppose I will have to do this by written motion, but I will be moving to stay the order pending appeal.

THE COURT: It’s not ripe.

MR. DICIANNI: Well, I think it is. It’s an injunction, and injunctions can be appealed–

THE COURT: Okay.

Linda Moore Attorney John Nelson is seen sitting on the right in the audience of the last Grafton Township meeting. Moore nominated him for Township Attorney, but the four Trustees voted, "No."

If you are not interested in what is happening in Grafton Township, ignore this post. It contains the court transcript for the separation of powers case between Supervisor Linda Moore and the Township Trustees.

Of possible interest is

• the determination of whether the Supervisor or the Trustees gets to select the computer consultant is deferred,
• former Township Administrator Pam Fender gets reimbursed for the money she spent to put together last April’s Annual Town Meeting,
• a decision is made regarding whether Ancel Glink may continue to give advice to the Township Trustees, even if the firm is not paid for it (Island Lake’s situation gets mentioned),
• mention of a rule to show cause,
• whether Moore attorney John Nelson will be appointed Township Attorney even though the Township Board rejected him 4-1,
• discussion of whether attorney Richard Cowen, who advised Moore before she retained Nelson, should be paid

STATE OF ILLINOIS ))
SS:
COUNTY OF MCHENRY )

IN THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LINDA I. MOORE, in her official
capacity as GRAFTON TOWNSHIP
SUPERVISOR,
Plaintiff,

vs.

GRAFTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, BETTY ZIRK, GERALD
MCMAHON, ROB LAPORTA, BARBARA
MURPHY, in their official capacity
and KERI-LYN KRAFTHEFER of ANCEL
GLINK DIAMOND BUSH DICIANNI &
KRAFTHEFER P.C., in her official
capacity as acting Grafton
Township Attorney, and GRAFTON
TOWNSHIP,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))))))))

No. 10 CH 684

ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED Report of
Proceedings had in the above-entitled cause before
The Honorable Michael T. Caldwell, Judge of the Circuit
Court of McHenry County, Illinois, on the 11th day of
March, 2011, in the McHenry County Government Center,
Woodstock, Illinois.

APPEARANCES:
NELSON & ASSOCIATES, by:
MR. JOHN M. NELSON,
on behalf of the Plaintiff,
ANCEL GLINK DIAMOND BUSH DICIANNI &
KRAFTHEFER, PC by:
MR. THOMAS G. DICIANNI
on behalf of the Defendants.

THE COURT: Linda Moore versus Grafton Township.
MR. NELSON: Good morning, Judge. This comes before the Court on status for entry on an order. I have a typed order, but I need to go over it with Mr. DiCianni.
THE COURT: Okay. We’ll pass it for now.
MR. NELSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: You’re welcome.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
was passed and later recalled.)
THE COURT: Linda Moore versus Grafton Township.
MR. DICIANNI: Good morning, your Honor, Thomas DiCianni
for the defendants.
MR. NELSON: Attorney John Nelson for Linda Moore, your Honor, plaintiff.
MR. DICIANNI: Mr. Nelson has tendered me a draft of a — of an order based on the transcript and we’re for the most part in agreement on all the points. The only — the only issue that I raised and we’re asking to present it to the Court is we had moved — we had included in the motion — we had included in the motion an issue about who should be the township’s computer consultant. It really wasn’t addressed in the evidence at all and the Court — and the ruling didn’t address it and, frankly, I don’t feel that any — we’re in a position — the Court’s in a position to have ruled on it or we’re in a position to argue about it. I would just ask the Court to treat that part of the motion as withdrawn, seeing as though there’s nothing really in the record to address it and there’s nothing in the Court’s ruling about it.
THE COURT: I was just handed the transcript and, quite frankly, I think you’re right. I don’t have any recollection of the computer issue being resolved. The only thing I think about it is that I had some questions about how the computer expert retained by the trustees was in fact retained –
MR. DICIANNI: Right.
THE COURT: — in terms of allowing their original billing, but –
MR. DICIANNI: That had to do with the bill.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. DICIANNI: Right.
THE COURT: But in terms of designating –
MR. DICIANNI: Right, right. That sort of got lost in the other issues that became more contentious.
THE COURT: That’s something I guess they’ll have to iron out between themselves.
MR. DICIANNI: Yeah, well, (indiscernible) — other
than that –
THE COURT: Subject to –
MR. NELSON: Judge, there –
THE COURT: — further trips back here.
MR. NELSON: Well, Judge, the — the only question I had is, and I put — I put in my draft order the payment of a reimbursement of Pam Fender because part of their request was the payment of $312 and some cents reimbursing her for money she spent on supplies for the annual meeting, and you had — you didn’t address that particular bill, at least that I saw in the record, but overall you seemed to rule in favor of paying expenses of the annual meeting, –
THE COURT: Right.
MR. NELSON: — not paying the mailing and whatever, so I put that in there –
THE COURT: That’s fine.
MR. NELSON: All right.
MR. DICIANNI: A couple other issues. Mr. Nelson sent out a motion regarding a legal bill for Richard Cowen which I got in my office on Thursday and was out of my office, out of town actually, until Monday and I haven’t had a chance to respond to it. I don’t really know — well, I just haven’t had a chance to respond to it.
THE COURT: I’m in a position here based upon what’s been happening in front of me where I cannot make an award of attorneys’ fees no matter who has done what for whom because there is no statute that authorizes it and there is no contract that authorizes it and there is no ordinance or resolution by the township that authorizes it, but I have indicated in my ruling that each of you is entitled to be paid for your representation of the parties to this case.
MR. DICIANNI: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So the procedure that should be followed in my judgment is that the bills should be submitted to the trustees for approval and payment, and then if it’s not, you can bring the matter back here.
MR. NELSON: It has not been — it has been submitted, Judge, and it has not been paid.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NELSON: It’s been denied.
MR. DICIANNI: It doesn’t fall neatly into either of those categories, so I would just like 14 days to explore it –
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DICIANNI: — and respond to the motion if that’s even necessary.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DICIANNI: Are you presenting this motion –- this other motion today?
MR. NELSON: Judge, I have prepared a motion for expansion of the preliminary injunctive order. My client was provided with a memorandum that I’ve attached, prepared by an attorney in Bloomington but a member of Mr. DiCianni’s office, and the Court had shrunk the injunction to Keri-Lyn Krafthefer solely. There is no language that, as many injunctive orders have, of agents, assigns, partners, employees, that kind of thing.

But we’re asking to expand it so that this kind of thing would be prohibited. The memorandum deals with current town business.
MR. DICIANNI: I didn’t know about this when it happened, but I would like time to respond. I think it’s a bigger issue than just this one — whether it should be expanded because I don’t think the Court can say or did say that the township trustees couldn’t seek legal advice from an attorney. What you said is we can’t represent the township and we can’t of course be paid for representing — for giving legal advice to the trustees.
THE COURT: They’re not going to sneak around behind the Court’s order and effectively take legal advice for routine township business from an attorney of their selection and bypass the appointed township attorney. I’m not going to allow that to happen because that simply — that simply defies the Court’s order.
MR. DICIANNI: Well, I can see — yes, that’s true, but that’s not what –
THE COURT: In this dispute I don’t have a problem, but we’re getting memoranda from a lawyer who has not been appointed as the township attorney by the township supervisor –
MR. DICIANNI: That’s — we have this going on in Island Lake right now where the trustees –
THE COURT: Well, that’s a different –
MR. DICIANNI: — have gone out and hired a different law firm.
THE COURT: — that’s a different proper.
MR. DICIANNI: I know, I know.
THE COURT: But if that’s the situation, then a rule to show cause should –
MR. DICIANNI: It’s an interesting issue. I – I — if this is going — this is going to be — it won’t happen again because we’ll be more careful about –- and, again, I didn’t know about this.
THE COURT: I’ll give you 14 days to answer
Mr. Nelson’s petition.
MR. DICIANNI: All right. Thank you.
MR. NELSON: Judge, do you want me to file this in the clerk’s office then or –
THE COURT: You can file with my clerk here.
MR. NELSON: Judge, in addition, I would be filing probably a motion — Miss Moore did attempt to appoint me as town attorney. The — not unsurprisingly that was defeated four to one. The trustees in fairness cited a conflict. If the Court has a strong feeling on –- you know, on this — but I think we have to get through that and then see where they’re going to go from there. So I’ll be filing –
THE COURT: (Indiscernible) hearing on that. The issue is, is there an articulable reason for not approving you.
MR. NELSON: Yes, sir, I understand.
THE COURT: Other than the fact that you represent
Ms. Moore.
MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.
MR. DICIANNI: Well, if that’s a motion that’s going to be presented, –
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DICIANNI: — I guess we’ll deal with it when it’s presented.
THE COURT: When you going to file it?
MR. NELSON: Judge, I can file that within the next couple of days really or — well, by Tuesday.
THE COURT: I’ll give you 14 days to answer that.And we have at least three petitions then?
MR. DICIANNI: Yeah, that’s right.
THE COURT: And we’ll start the time to answer all of the petitions in this case on the 15th and we’ll give you until the 29th, Mr. DiCianni.
MR. DICIANNI: That’s fine.
THE COURT: And seven days thereafter to reply, Mr. Nelson.
MR. NELSON: Actually, you know, I’m going on vacation the 25th. It’s my — spring break for my son. Can I — can we get –
THE COURT: 21?
MR. NELSON: Yeah, 21.
THE COURT: That’s fine. Time to reply then is extended to April 11th. We’ll hear it on April 26th at 9:30.
MR. DICIANNI: All right. I have seven days to respond to his reply?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. DICIANNI: Did you say April 26th?
THE COURT: Six.
MR. NELSON: April 26.
MR. DICIANNI: 26th.
MR. NELSON: At what time, Judge? I’m sorry.
THE COURT: 9:30.
MR. DICIANNI: One final point, Lee Neubecker from Forensicon is in court here today. I think he might have thought that there was going to be some kind of a hearing. Obviously I don’t represent him, but he asked me if I would ask you if he could address the Court this morning.
THE COURT: No.
MR. DICIANNI: Okay.
THE COURT: He may not.
MR. NELSON: Thank you, Judge. What do you want to do about the order?
MR. DICIANNI: Well, just strike that one line, add that and we’re done.
MR. NELSON: Okay. We’ll hand it up.
Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: All right.

If you are really, really interested in what happened in Judge Michael Caldwell’s courtroom on February 24, 2010, here’s where you can read the transcript that hasn’t already been posted on McHenry County Blog this week.

Grafton Township Trustees Barb Murphy, Rob LaPorta, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon at a meeting last year.

There were a couple of parts that jumped out at me.

• a somewhat irritated Judge Caldwell said, “Overruled. I know what it said. I wrote it,” in response to an objection raised by Township Trustees’ attorney Thomas DiCianni objected to the way Linda Moore attorney John Nelson characterized the Judge’s direction on how contracts were to be handled (about 30% into the transcript)
• “The problem is, is that the deal went down outside of the meeting. It went down outside of city hall or township hall. It went down when Mr. LaPorta cozied up with Mr. Brown and negotiated contract and presented a contract to the board as
  a fait accompli,” Judge Caldwell observed, continuing, “It is not the way public bodies do business — and you know that,” talking over DiCianni (about half way through)
• “Don’t hold you breath,” the Judge said when asked about IT Solutions, adding, “Not going to happen. Contracts negotiated by Pam Fender do not stand on solid ground in front of me, number one…”
• “We would ask for sanctions,” DiCianni asked in his concluding remarks.

Pam Fender

Pam Fender, the Grafton Township Administrator whom Judge Michael Caldwell cut from the payroll, is filing for unemployment compensation, according to the First Electric Newspaper.

Fender was hired by the Grafton Township Trustees, an act that was held to be improper by Judge Caldwell.

Fender is an elected Huntley Village Trustee.

She used to be a painting contractor and was apparently an insurance account representative in August while she was Township Administrator.

Now comes into the email box of McHenry County Blog a decision by the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor.

In early December Cynthia Schenk asked the McHenry County Conservation District for a list of hunters allowed on district property.

Ancel Glink attorney Scott Puma applied to the Public Access Counselor for permission to deny the request based on the exemption that revelation would be a clear invasion of privacy.  (That’s the same reason that McHenry County College used to deny McHenry County Blog access to ex-President Walt Packard’s performance evaluations.)

On behalf of the Public Counselor, Matthew C. Rogina denied that request.  (Click to enlarge images below.)

Not a particularly big decision perhaps.

But, put in perspective of the YouTube presentation by Keri-Lyn Krafthefer, with the repeated message:

“You must produce the record,”

I think some might find the juxtaposition of the request to hide the document with the message of the video of interest.

It’s really quite humorous, especially the end, which mirrors an infomercial.

This 37 image post is for hard-core Grafton Township folks. It comprises Judge Michael Caldwell’s entire decision in Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s suit against her Township Trustees and Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer of Ancel Glink, the Township Attorney that she dismissed months ago. Click to enlarge any image.

Linda Moore chairing a Grafton Township Board meeting. Court reporter hired by Ancel Glink is seen in the background.

Introduction – page 1 and 2.

Linda Moore – page 2 and 3.

Township Administrator’s Job Description – pages 3-7.

Linda Moore relationship with Pam Fender – pages 7-8.

Moore and township attorneys – 7 and 8.

Moore continues through page 10.

Township Administrator Pam Fender is seen behind Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer.

John Rossi – pages 11 and 12.

Bill Ottley – pages 12 and 13.

Chad Smith – page 13.

Mark Peloquin – pages 13 and 14.

Mary Lou Hardy – page 14.

Donald Kruto – page 14.

Pamela Fender – pages 14-16.

This is the night Township Trustees Rob LaPorta, Gerry McMahon, Barbara Murhpy and Betty Zirk hired Pam Fender as Township Administrator. There was no solicitation for other applicants. Click to enlarge.

Rob LaPorta – pages 17 and 18.

Yanif Schiff – pages 18 and 19.

Dina Frigo – pages 19 and 20.

Mary Ford – page 20.

Betty Zirk – pages 20-21.

Keri Krafthefer – page 21.

John Heisler – page 21 and 22.

Issues start on pages 22-24.

Law – pages 24-28.

Analysis – pages 28-29.

Township Supervisor – pages 29-32.

Township Administrator – page 32.

Township Records – page 32-33.

Attorneys Fees – page 34.

Findings – pages 34 and 35.

Orders – page 35 and 36.

Distribution – last page.

With Judge Michael Caldwell’s decision on the Grafton Township separate of power suit due to be announced Monday morning, it seems appropriate to take a look at what the dispute has cost Grafton Township taxpayers in legal fees.

The principals in the suit are shown left to right: Trustee Gerry McMahon, Trustee Barbara Murphy, Trustee Betty Zirk (standing), Supervisor Linda Moore and Trustee Rob LaPorta.

Ancel Glink, the law firm for the Grafton Township Trustees, billed $130,296.98 from April through August.

Specifically, the billings were

• April – $18,50.75
• May – $26,373.75
• June – $51,738.75
• July – $26,072.50
• August – $7,611.25

The other side of the dispute billed $32,013.60.

John M. Nelson, the Rockford attorney who represented Township Supervisor Linda Moore is asking for $26,953.60.

He replaced Richard Cowan, who is Barrington Township’s attorney, but officed in Chicago. His bill is $5,060.

So $32,000 for one side, $130,000 for the other.

The township supervisor was outspent over 4 to 1.

Linda Moore

Now both sides in the Grafton Township Separation of Powers suit have filed their briefs.

Moore’s attorney, Rockford-based attorney John Nelson, gave his 7-page argument to the McHenry County Circuit Clerk Thursday.

Ancel Glink, the township trustees’ multi-lawyer firm, filed its brief previously.

Moore’s attorney makes pretty much the same arguments he made in his original request for injunctive relief.

He argues that the Supervisor is the Chief Executive Officer of the township and Judge Michael Caldwell should craft his decision based upon that premise.

The Grafton Township Board seen in a meeting. The Trustees are, from left to right, Gerry McMahon, Betty Zirk, Rob LaPorta and Barb Murphy. Supervisor Linda Moore is standing.

Nelson says the authority claimed by the trustees is based upon “the fact they have a majority of the Board.”

Grafton Township Trustee Betty Zirk extolls the virtues of a new Township Hall at the 2009 Annual town Meeting.

The whole case results from the voters electing a candidate “whose opposition to a new township hall is in direct opposition to the position of the Board.”

“The central legal issue involved is the age old issue of the separation of powers or the branches of government. The board of Trustees is the legislative branch of government which is seeking to impose its will on and usurp the duties of the Supervisor, or in the township structure, the executive branch of government. It is this issue that makes this case important, complicated, and difficult to deal with.”

“The court should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the voters of Grafton Township.”

The brief continues,

“For better or worse, the Grafton Township citizenry chose Linda Moore as the Grafton Township Supervisor. Once the electorate spoke their will and wisdom must carry the day. By statute 60 ILCS 1/170-15 and … 25, 30, 35 the township supervisor is the C.E.O. And the C.F.O. Of the township. There are no conflicting statutes or cases that stand in the way of the township being led by the township supervisor. As a result this court should enter an order declaring that the township supervisor runs the township, period…

“The Supervisor should be given by this court the absolute right to control her offices, telephone lines, township mail and manage the township finances…”

Judge Caldwell is asked to “order the supervisor has the right to hire and fire all township employees under her direction. This includes the Town Administrator and Township Attorney…” (and be given) “the sole right…(and) ability to contract on behalf of the township.”

Services contracted by trustees should “be paid by the trustees who contracted for those bills to confirm that only the Township Supervisor can negotiate contracts for the township.”

Nelson further asks the court to terminate the services of attorneys Ancel Glink, as previously was done (by Supervisor John Rossi) “without board authority.”

“Supervisor Moore may continue to administer Grafton Township in a manner the trustees find perplexing. Such is the will of the people for both sides,” Nelson writes.

Nelson also asks that he be given until close of business today to file a petition for his legal fees.

“Who can obligate the township?“

is one of the key questions in the Grafton Township separation of powers lawsuit that Supervisor Linda Moore filed against the four Township Trustees and Ancel Glink partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer.

Supervisor Linda Moore has refused to pay a fair number of bills the services for which she did not initiate.

The Annual Town Meeting held on April 13, 2010, was packed. Even though chairs had to be brought in, even by attendees, a good number were left standing.

Services requested by Township Administrator Pam Fender with regard to the Annual Town Meeting have been submitted, approved by the township board, but not paid. Moore has said the non-payment is on the advice of her attorney, John Nelson, pending the outcome of the trial.

The most interesting one is bill from Forensicon.

Right before the end of the trial, Ancel Glink litigator Thomas DiCianni requested “interim relief.” He wanted Judge Michael Caldwell to order Moore to “pay the Forensicom bill.”

It’s now about $15,000.

Forensicom charges $350 per hour for "Trial Preparation & Reporting."

And I’m not sure that includes the cost of court testimony at $350 per hour.

Judge Caldwell’s answer?

“I have the authority to do so, but I won’t.

“If Forensicon wants to take action on its own, it can.”

"Retaining Client" is the way this contract with Forensicon characterizes Grafton Township law firm Ancel Glink.

Ancil Glink seems to have arranged to hire the firm.  It is listed above as the “retaining client.”

Forensicon contract page showing March 25, 2010, signatures of Grafton Township Trustees Betty Zirk and Rob LaPorta. Click to enlarge.

Trustees Betty Zirk and Rob LaPorta signed the contract on behalf of Grafton Township.

Grafton Township Trustee Rob LaPorta listens as colleague Betty Zirk speaks.

Who will be on the hook for the $15,000 bill when the judge’s decision comes down?

This is the second half of an article in which Grafton and Nunda Townships are compared as seen through the eyes of courtroom testimony before Judge Michael Caldwell in the Grafton Township separation of powers case.

Speaking later of finances, Heisler said he provided an income statement and a balance sheet every month.

Heisler was asked to compare Nunda to Grafton Township.

“Our levy’s about $1.1 million. The road district is $3.5 to $4 million. I assume Grafton is similar in size to that.” [See this article for Grafton Township financial information.]

Number of employees were requested.

The supervisor’s office has one full- and one part-time employee “and myself,” Heisler said.

The assessor’s office has seven and the road commissioner “18, I think” to service “100 miles of road.”

The Nunda Township Supervisor was asked if he ever “terminated a township attorney.”

DiCianni again objected to “relevance.”

“Overruled,” Judge Caldwell said.

Heisler told of a situation in which a partner in the law firm of the township attorney represented a developer whose subdivision was deemed objectionable by the Township Planning Commission.

The Trustees agreed and passed a resolution.

Heisler said he didn’t have a problem with his township attorney’s colleague representing the developer until the other lawyer “defamed me” in a letter.

“I had to dismiss the law firm. I couldn’t deal with a law firm with a partner who would defame me.”

“Did you obtain board approval before?”

“I didn’t dismiss him. I asked for him for a letter of resignation, which he gave me.”

Nelson probed further into his relationship with the other elected officials.

“Who directs the actions of the township.

Heisler’s reply:

“I’m chairman of the board and CEO. When I came on board we adopted Robert’s Rules of Order and adopted rules we used at the county board.

“That’s how we conduct our meeting.

“I make the day-to-day decisions in the township.

“There are only two authorized to commit Nunda Township for anything, purchasing anything from supplies to a Chevrolet—the road commissioner and the supervisor.”

Heisler added that he “engage(s) an attorney and a CPA firm without approval of the board.”

When DiCianni got his turn at questioning Heisler he asked whether he would include items on the agenda requested by trustees.

“I’d probably discuss it with him and if after (doing so, thought the request appropriate would do so.)”

Concerning paying bills, Heisler was asked if he paid them after his board approved them.

“We have the checks made out.” [I remember Linda Moore's have said she did that, but stopped preparing hers in advance when the board started disapproving some.]

“You’ve never refused to pay a bill approved by the board?” DiCianni continued. “Always?”

“Yes.”

“When the board has questions, you answer?”

“Yes.”

Does Heisler show the trustees financial information?

“Yes.”

“Was Robert’s Rules of Order approved by the board?”

“Yes. I get along with my board. They have a right to say, ‘No.’”

The Trustees’ lawyer asked about the “process by which you and the road commissioner hire an attorney. The practice is that (your) board hasn’t required advice and consent?”

“That’s our practice,” Heisler replied.

Asked about the attorney who was discharged, the answer was, “He resigned. I asked him for his resignation and he did.”

On re-cross examination, Nelson probed Nunda Township trustees had access to the township’s attorney with resulting bills that were paid by the township.

The answer was a big “No.”

“On one occasion (a trustee called) James Militello, Sr., for clarification. I’ve forgotten the issue. When the legal bill came through, it was on there.

“I asked the trustee to abstain from voting.

“No board member is allowed to commit Nunda Trustee (on anything).

Heisler was asked if his township was typical.

As he answered, “Yes,” DiCianni objected for “lack of foundation.”

This time he was sustained.

So, Nelson asked him about the organization he had chaired, the McHenry County Township Supervisors Association.

He said the group met monthly and was informal.

Asked whether he familiarized himself with “operations of the other townships,” Heisler replied, “Somewhat. A great deal of our discussion is around our General Assistance program.”

Laying foundation, I guess.

“Objection. Lack of foundation, relevance,” DiCianni interjected.

“Overruled,” Judge Caldwell quickly ruled.

My notes say that DiCianni next started asking questions.

“When the board asks you questions, you answer them, right?”

“Yes.”

“You’re not familiar with any township that have dysfunctional relationships between the supervisor an trustees?”

“This is not a club where we sit around and always agree,” Heisler replied. “I always vote last so as not to influence board members.”

“When the board passes a policy, you disagree with, you enforce it, (right)?”

It didn’t make my notes, but I’m pretty sure Heisler answered in the affirmative.

The questioning ceased when Heisler said he was unaware of any other townships with township administrators.