McHenry County Blog

Linda Moore

The litigation concerning who has what power in Grafton Township has been long and expensive, but also interesting.  I’ve discussed how it involves the pitting of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of local government with Linda Moore’s attorney John Nelson and an attorney at Ancel, Glink, suggesting the case would be wonderful for law school students.  The one at Ancel, Glink said he would talk to a professor at Northwestern University.

The first case was won by Moore.

Judge Michael Caldwell ruled that she had executive powers much as do village board presidents.  (Both, you will note have a vote on their legislative bodies.)

Ancel, Glink, dismissal by Moore was ratified and Township Administrator Pam Fender, installed by the Trustees to take over pretty much ever duty the Supervisor had had under the man she beat in the GOP primary, John Rossi, performed, except the administration of General Assistance (a very limited welfare program) and keeping the books.

The second time around, Caldwell also ruled for Moore, saying that her choice for Township Attorney, Nelson, would be installed even though he had been rejected by the four Township Trustees.

The Trustees attorney, Thomas DiCianni, seemed visible stuck (read the bottom of the transcript) by Caldwell decision.  After regaining his composure, he asked to appeal and, upon consideration, Caldwell granted him that request.

Trustees Rob LaPorta, Barb Murphy, Berry Zirk and Gerry McMahon won that effort in the 2nd Appellate Court.

Now, Moore has announced that she will not appeal the ruling that Trustees must approve her nomination for Township Attorney.

Last night two Trustees, LaPorta and Murphy, joined more in appointing Michael Torchalski as “Special Counsel” to handle legal affairs in the sale of the Haligus Road property.  That parcel was purchased from the Village of Lake in the Hills for a new township hall.  That decision by the Township Board headed by John Rossi.  Moore used the issue to defeat Rossi in the first GOP primary election in Grafton Township.  (Previous township officials were elected on ad hoc party names.)

Here is the press release from Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore:

Grafton Township Supervisor Declines Appeal to the State Supreme Court

Linda Moore, Supervisor of Grafton Township announced today she did not authorize an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court as to whether it was legal for the trial court to order confirmation of her Attorney, John M. Nelson, as Grafton Township Attorney.

The Second District Court of Appeals reversed the order of the trial court in its decision on August 2011.

“The case involves complicated issues of enforcement of a court’s injunction versus arguments of separation of powers. While my attorney was anxious to have the Illinois Supreme Court decide these important issues, unfortunately, the cost to township taxpayers of such an appeal would vastly outweigh the benefits to Grafton Township and it’s taxpayers, “

Ms. Moore stated.

“The trustees’ attorneys, Ancel Glink have charged a total of $57,379 for just their appeal to the Second District. This is in addition to Attorney Nelson’s charges of $ $11,707.

“I can only imagine how many more tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to make law on this issue,”

stated Moore.

In addition, there is no guarantee the parties could obtain an expedited hearing for a quick decision.

“The Illinois Supreme Court is very deliberate because they set the rule of law in the state, “Ms. Moore said.

“We need a township attorney now, not months from now.”

Ms. Moore pledged she would continue to nominate qualified attorneys to assist Grafton Township in their legal matters. She continued by saying,

“Hopefully the trustees will come to their senses and confirm this appointment so we can move beyond the self-defeating actions that have driven this board.”

The Grafton Township Board wasn’t unanimous in its decisions Thursday night, but there was enough cooperation to pass two motions concerning the potential sale of the Haligus Road property purchased by the previous Board where a new township hall was planned.

The Grafton Township Board spent most of its just over a half an hour meeting behind closed doors.

After a closed door meeting which at time reached quite high decibels discussing subjects other than the sale of the real estate and the hiring of “special counsel (hence, the asterisk in the headline above),” the Board actually passed motions with Supervisor Linda Moore and Trustee Robert LaPorta on the same side.

Although the purchase offer was not revealed, it had to be less than the counteroffer of $120,000, plus expenses.  A motion to that effect was passed 4-1, with only Trustee Betty Zirk voting in the negative

One would assume the expenses would be the cost of hiring real estate attorney Michael Torchalski. plus an appraisal and maybe even the For Sale sign.  On that motion, Jerry McMahon and Betty Zirk voted, “No,” while Township Supervisor Linda Moore and Trustees Rob LaPorta and Barb Murphy voted in favor.

No shouting was heard in the open meeting Thursday night at the Grafton Township meeting.

When asked after the meeting by the Northwest Herald reporter if the prospective purchaser was the American Muslim Community Organization, none of the Board members would say.

The amount proposed to be paid by the interested party was not revealed either.

I filed a Freedom of Information request for both

• the offer, which was discussed by the Supervisor and Trustees, and
• the resolution hiring the attorney.

I am confident that the two documents were put in the public domain by the actions that the Board took in open session.

Several Board members said they would have to ask their attorney.

I pointed out they did not have one, except for real estate.

LaPorta said he had one who would provide free advice.

The 2nd Appellate Court placed a separation of powers bump in the judicial road that stopped Judge Michael Caldwell from installing John Nelson, Supervisor Linda Moore's choice for Township Attorney, without Township Board approval.

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s string of court victories met a bump in the judicial road Thursday.

A unanimous 2nd Appellate Court panel decision overruled McHenry County Circuit Court Judge Michael Caldwell’s order that Moore attorney John Nelson should be installed as Township Attorney without Township Board approval.

This separation of powers suit loss, argued by Ancel Glink attorney Thomas G. DiCanni, comes after Moore won a separation of powers suit concerning the exercise of her executive branch powers as Township Supervisor.

Written by Justice Donald C. Hudson, with Justices Robert D. McLaren and Mary Shostok concurring, the opinion ruled that “due respect must always be shown to other co-equal branches of government.”

The appeals court ruled that Judge Caldwell should not have interfered with the discretion possessed by the board on this issue.”

“…the court system has no role to play in reviewing whether the supervisor’s appointment of [John] Nelson should be confirmed,” the decision says.

In further explaining its decision, the panel wrote, “…this case concerns a court directing a legislative body how to proceed on a matter that would typically be within the discretion of the legislative body.”

Complaints have been made about Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s attorney John Nelson’s charging $250 per hour.

That’s more than the $185 per hour that Keri-Lyn Krafthefer charged before she was dismissed by a court order from McHenry County Circuit Court Judge Michael Caldwell.

Since Moore’s attorney has won most of the skirmishes and certainly the major points of contention, some might argue that even with his higher hourly rate, Nelson is a better buy than Ancel Glink’s attorneys.

Today, let’s look at the latest bills from both firms.

First, here’s the last three-page bill from Ancel Glink. It totals $10,438.



The billing cycles are different for John Nelson. Below you see two months’ bills, which total $5,070.65. That’s about half as much as Ancel Glink billed for one month.  Click on any image to enlarge it.

It may interest some to learn that Krafthefer, no longer township attorney, billed $6,197.50–more in one month than Nelson did in two.
I note that Nelson bills in tenths of an hour, while Ancel Glink seems to bill in quarter-hour segments.

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.

Wheatland Patch is running a story about the attempt of three members of the Wheatland Township Board to build a new town hall.

Cost $1.5 million.

Cast of characters includes a group of uppity citizens.

Sounds like Grafton Township two years ago, except Grafton’s Town Hall was going to cost $3 million.

Keri-Lyn Krafthefer wrote in an email that her firm had “just defeated (Moore) in a case.”

Grafton Township Trustee Gerry McMahon makes a point as fellow Trustees Berry Zirk, Rob LaPorta and Barbara Murphy listen.

Keri-Lyn Krafthefer

Ancel Glink Partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer told the Wheatland Patch that her firm “won a significant victory on behalf of our clients in Grafton Township against Linda Moore.”

Funny.

Linda Moore

That’s not what I heard Donna McMahon say before the court session last week when Judge Michael Caldwell order that her husband Trustee Gerry McMahon and fellow Trustees Betty Zirk, Barbara Murphy and Rob LaPorta be listed by name in a court order to approve Moore’s attorney John Nelson as Grafton Township Attorney.

Commenting on Ancel Glink, the Wheatland Township’s law firm, Grafton Township Supervisor said it did not work “for the good of the people. They’re working of the good of their own pocketbook.”

Ancel Glink has been paid $313,000 so far, Moore told reporter Robyn Morganhan.

“Do we have to lose every time?” asked Donna McMahon of the Grafton Township Trustees’ counsel Thomas DiCianni, as those in the courtroom awaiting the arrival of Supervisor Linda Moore’s Rockford attorney John Nelson.

“You’ve won more than you’ve lost,” DiCianni replied to Township Trustee Gerry McMahon’s wife.

“If you win, you get something,” she continued. “If we’ve won, how come things keep getting worse?”

After the April meeting, Grafton Township Trustees Barb Murphy, Rob LaPorta and Betty Zirk confer, while Gerry McMahon reads.

Hearing Judge Michael Caldwell order the Trustees to approve Moore’s personal attorney as Grafton Township Attorney at the Board’s next meeting may have reinforced McMahon’s opinion regarding how the long-running and costly case is going.

Nelson argued he should be appointed by the Judge because “I don’t believe these parties will ever come to an agreement on a township attorney.”

DiCianni argued that this part of the case was about separation of powers, contending the Township Trustees were equivalent to the United States Congress, which has to confirm the appointment of the President’s cabinet secretaries.

The Trustees’ attorney did not question Nelson’s competence, but said the township attorney “should be providing opinions everyone would have confidence in,” that Nelson could not be that person because he viewed the situation from “the eyes of an advocate rather than a dispassionate advisor of the entire Board.”

“When somebody’s an advocate for one party or another…it takes a tremendous amount of effort to be objective.”

Former Grafton Township Attorney Joe Gottemoller, who just happened to be in the courtroom on another case, listened intently to the arguments. (Read his advice of two years ago, here.)

In his rejoinder, Nelson said,

“I think its a fair argument that the Grafton Township Board is a far cry from the United States Congress. The Supervisor is on the Board.”

He argued that Judge Caldwell did have “the authority to resolve disputes of this matter” concerning the confirmation statute.

Then Nelson pointed out that DiCianni’s firm Ancel Glink was in the same situation when Keri-Lyn Krafthefer was Grafton Township Attorney.  Caldwell dismissed her as Township Attorney.

In short, if Ancel Glink could fulfill both roles, so could Nelson.

Nelson argued that the Supervisor must have confidence in the Township Attorney and that not having a Township Attorney had “really hamstrung the township.”

Judge Caldwell’s reaction was to say that he was “sympathetic with the separation of powers” argument, but thought the analogy was “overly broad because we’re dealing here with township government, not the United States government.”

He said he was “sensitive to the argument that courts should not (intervene, but) I didn’t run for Circuit Judge for the purpose of being a Township Supervisor or Township Trustee.

“However, I do have the power to enjoin what I believe is a continuing (dispute).

“I believe the failure of the Trustees (to approve Nelson’s appointment, that it was) rejected as a pretext for continuing this dispute. I order them to approve (the appointment).”

The judge explained that when he was Woodstock City Attorney he had a reputation for telling the councilmen “things they didn’t want to hear.”

He indicated that he thought Nelson could do the same.

“I want the trustees mentioned by name in any order so (they can be) held in contempt (if they don’t follow my instructions).”

“I ask for a stay pending an appeal,” the Trustees’ attorney replied.

“It’s not right,” Caldwell said, but, after a bit of reflection, said, “I will stay the order for thirty days.”

After DiCianni drafted an order in the hall and showed it to Nelson, the two appeared before Judge Caldwell again.

Nelson pointed out that, as drafted the court order was a “negative injunction.”

“They are ordered to approve (Nelson as Township Attorney),” the Judge said.

Then, in a moment of levity, he observed,

“And the beat goes on.”

That broke me up, after which I apologized.

In the hall Nelson’s reaction like this:

“Obviously, we agree with Judge Caldwell’s decision. As we argued to the Court, Attorney Nelson’s representation of the Town of Grafton is no different than opposing counsel’s representation of Grafton Township during the pendency of the case.

“While the Trustees have every right to appeal the decision of Judge Caldwell, the appeal will prove very expensive to the taxpayers of Grafton Township.”

The order was stayed until after the appeal is completed.
I asked Trustees Betty Zirk and Barb Murphy what progress there was concerning selecting an auditor.

“We’re working on the audit,” Murphy replied. Zirk indicated it would be discussed at the Thursday, May 14th Board meeting.

Dismissed was a motion that would have prohibited the Ancel Glink law firm from representing Grafton Township, an expansion from banning Krafthefer after another attorney offered apparently free advice to the Trustees about the rejection of citizen-petitioned subjects for the Annual Town Meeting.

Also apparently decided was that Moore’s pre-litigation attorney Richard Cowan will be paid $3,400 at the next Board meeting. Cowan originally billed $5,060.

At the last meeting of the Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore asked her adversaries on the Township Board to approve the man whose arguments unseated their choice for Township Attorney, Keri Lyn Krafthefer, in Judge Michael Caldwell’s court.

Attorney John Nelson can been seen sitting in the middle of the front row in this photo of the last Grafton Township meeting.

To no one’s surprise the services of Attorney Nelson were summarily rejected on a 4-1 vote.

“Conflict” was the word used to explain the rejection. Moore was asked to bring three recommendations from among whom the Township Trustees would chose.

At that same meeting unpaid for advice was given by an Ancel Glink attorney that led the Trustees to knock all of the citizen-initiated resolutions off the agenda of Annual Town Meeting.

The provision of that advice led to negative comments from Judge Caldwell (“They’re not going to sneak around behind the Court’s order …”) and a motion to expand the prohibition of legal advice from Ancel Glink beyond Krafthefer.

After the meeting, Nelson brought up the subject in Judge Caldwell’s court and the jurist said,

“The issue is, is there an articulable reason for not approving you.”

A motion filed last Friday may lead to an answer to that question.

Moore contends that Nelson’s approval was “unreasonably withheld.”

“Further, Supervisor Moore believes outside of conflict the Trustees can offer no articulable reason to deny consent and confirmation of Attorney Nelson as Grafton Town Attorney.”

You can read the motion below. Click to enlarge any page.

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.

John Nelson

Thursday night, the Grafton Township Trustees rejected Supervisor Linda Moore’s selection of Rockford’s John Nelson as Township Attorney.

Little surprise there, since Nelson’s representation of Moore led to the dismissal of both the Trustees’ favored law firm Ancel Glink, but also Township Administrator Pam Fender, whom the Trustees put in office to perform as much of the Township Supervisor’s duties as possible.

I didn’t look at the agenda and got to the Huntley Park District meeting room too late to get a board packet, so I didn’t know what to expect. In fact, after listening to the tedium of expenditure discussion, I asked someone why I had come.

“Don’t worry. They’ll start shouting at each other.”

Before the shouting started at the Grafton Township Board Meeting.

And Gerry McMahon certainly lived up to that prediction.

More than once.

The person who was most disturbed for the negative impression made by McMahon’s outbursts is the Trustee who successfully moved to censure him in October of 2009, Barb Murphy.

At one point she said forcefully,

“I’m just telling you to shut the hell up for a few minutes so we can finish this damn meeting!”

The board reversed itself on selecting the 300-seat auditorium at the Huntley Park District headquarters in favor of returning to the Huntley High School gym.

Over 700 registered voters signed in at last year’s Annual Town Meeting.

The 2010 Grafton Annual Town Meeting had more that twice as many people as would fit in the Huntley Park District Auditorium.

The vote was 2-2 with Murphy and Moore voting for the move to the high school and Betty Zirk and McMahon voting to stay in the 300-seat venue.

Rob LaPorta abstained.

Moore ruled that abstentions would be counted on the positive side of the motion and moved onto the next item of business. And, my understanding is that under Robert’s Rules of Order, once the next item is taken up (video cameras for the Annual Meeting), it is too late to appeal the decision of the chair.

When I got home I looked up what Robert’s says about how abstention votes should be tallied and found the following on “The Official Robert’s Rules of Order Web Site“:

“In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast.”

But, as McMahon loudly proclaimed,

“We don’t follow Robert’s Rules!”

LaPorta, who abstained, said,

“I didn’t know about that. Guys from Lake in the Hills, what do you do?”

The reply from a village trustee:

“We follow Robert’s Rules.”

In another dispute, Moore asked permission to have the Electors vote upon trading the township van for a car which would ir easier for seniors to get into.

This was apparently the first time Moore has brought up the subject.

Moore pointed out that both bus drivers and seniors favored the switch.

Of the van. referring to the seniors, she said, “They hate it.”

“Send it to the (Transportation) Committee,” McMahon, a senior himself, said.

“It’ll take another year,” Moore replied.

“We don’t care,” McMahon retorted.

“We can’t be driving the bus all the time. It doesn’t look right to have one or two passengers in a bus.”

Moore pointed out that the bus used more gasoline than would a car and predicted that the price per gallon would exceed $5 this summer.

“I want to remove it from the agenda,” the other senior citizen on the panel said. “This is the first time it’s come up.”

And a majority of the Township Board took action that removes the possibility of trading the van for a car.

The final item I found of interest was that Ancel Glink is still providing legal advice.

A memo from Jeffrey R. Jurgens dated March 3, 2010, was used as the basis for rejecting all of the citizen-initiated resolutions.

Ancel Glink’s services as Grafton Township Attorney were ended by Judge Michael Caldwell.

Pete Gonigan asks about the use of Ancel Glink for legal advice.

Afterward, First Electric Newspaper Publisher Pete Gonigam asked about Ancel Glink’s continuing legal advice.

“The judge said we could still go to Ancel Glink at no charge,” LaPorta said.