McHenry County Blog

Dorr Township Attorney Mark Saladin and Supervisor Bob Pierce

“Filled to capacity” is how one person in attendance last night at the Dorr Township meeting.

The Dorr Township Hall meeting room is small, so that meant about 25 residents were present.

The biggest news was that Supervisor Bob Pierce was granted permission to enter negotiations for the purchase of land, which he said would not be purchased without having a special meeting to get elector approval.

Note that a special meeting is not the same as the annual town meeting, which is usually the best attended meeting of the year.

Pierce said residents “would be surprised.”

Steven Kaiser makes his points.

“Dorr is the fourth largest township with the smallest hall!” he observed.

Legat Architects was also hired to provide “pre-referendum services.”

Public comments came early on with Steve Kaiser, a member of the now-disbanded Dorr Township Citizens Committee, asking about why “soil borings” was changed to “architects.”

Those March 9th soil borings were not presented to the board by the Road Commissioner Tom Thurman because he wanted to seek assistance interpreting them.

With trustees and audience members putting in their two cents about whether the minutes reflected what had occurred at the previous meeting, the exchange got heated.

“This is not going to become another Grafton Township,” Township Supervisor Bob Pierce said.

During the Public Comment section, the Supervisor and Trustees questioned former members of the Dorr Citizens group who presented the petition to rebate taxes. Questions asked included -

1.       How the $1 million number was determined? The officials were told the citizens thought that was the rebate needed to allow a responsible amount to be left over after paying for modifications to garage site and building. After the $1 million rebate, $1.75 million would remain for needed work.

2.       Do you know how difficult and expensive it could be to track down all current and former residents to distribute rebate? Resident Jane Collins explained that in Bourbonnais (a Kankakee County Township) the amount which could not be returned had been given to charitable organizations, after a citizen-initiated motion at an annual town meeting.

Dorr Township Board and attorney

The citizens who proposed the rebate were also asked they thought about the McHenry County Conservation District’s building a visitor center.

Such an argument reminds me of how Grafton Township Trustee Gerry McMahon once listed local governmental entities that had built new administrative facilities—the Huntley School District, the Village of Huntley, McHenry County—as justification for a new Grafton Township Hall.

Township Road Commissioner Tom Thurman suggested some members of the Citizens Committee had “a hidden agenda.” He also said, “We know more than…” the Citizens Committee about what needs to be done.

“You don’t listen to us.”

That prompted a resident Larry Oakford to stand up to chide Thurman, saying his “demeanor is unseemly” and that comments about a hidden agenda were inappropriate. The man also asked about making use of existing space.

Trustee Mark Andersen said the board had been real conservative and was trying to “not drop a bomb on taxpayers.”

The board admitted it had been gradually accumulating funds so they wouldn’t have to go to referendum.

Citizen reading report at the Dorr Township meeting

Everyone knows how hard it is to pass a referendum, Road Commissioner Thurman said.

“The burden is on you to provide a justification about what you do,” Collins suggested, adding that some would say they had been borrowing from the taxpayers without their knowledge and permission since 2002, that what the referendum proposes is a way to pay back some of that loan to the taxpayers.

Thurman said the officials know how to do their job, that citizens shouldn’t be telling them how to do it.

Sue Brokaw, who is bookkeeper and does the General Assistance for Pierce, told the audience they should come to the levy meetings, and so they could do something before the township gets the money instead of complaining about it now.

Board members admitting they had discussed the three building project items “individually” before the meeting.

Vivian Sodini, member of the Dorr Planning Committee, asked why the trustees hadn’t taken the time before last night’s meeting to discuss the details of the recommendations with the committee.

Trustee Joseph Evanoff replied that they didn’t need to because, “We can read.”

When it was revealed that the architects had never been given our report, but had been given a scornful letter written by the one member of the citizens planning committee who thought our only job was to look for land, the audience was stunned. That same member, Ted Anderson, also interviewed architects with Trustee Barry Lamb.

Dorr Township Hall

In discussing one petition question citizens had submitted, it was revealed that the 600 ton capacity included for a new salt shed was based on faulty information. The needed amount being about 4,000 tons, that number was inserted in the question.

“You should have the entire year’s supply” at the start of the season, Road Commissioner Thurman said.

The board decided to put that question to the electors of the annual township meeting.

Members of the disbanded Dorr Township Planning Committee will be allowed make a presentation to electors at the annual meeting, provided they clearly specify they are doing so as electors and not members of the committee.

The meeting will probably be at the High School on South Street in order to hold a larger number of attendees.

Supporters of building a new township hall were also in attendance.

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore took her dispute with Township Trustees Betty Zirk, Gerald McMahon, Rob LaPorta and Barbara Murphy to court Wednesday.

She’s in civil court seeking injunctive relief to regain her role as chief executive of the township. She hoped for immediate relief, but Judge Maureen McIntyre “found there was no emergency,” Moore attorney John Nelson said. A court date will be set Monday.

“The Grafton Township Board of Trustees has, without legal authority, engaged in a broad course of conduct designed to eliminate Supervisor Moore from conducting any Grafton Township business,” the suit says.

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore and her attorney John Nelson leave the McHenry County Courthouse after filing a suit to reclaim the power that township trustees have taken from her. The sun was radiating enough heat to bring the temperature to 57 degrees.

As readers know, the township board, still smarting from its judicial loss of the new $5 million township hall on Haligus road and election of nemesis Moore as township supervisor, decided to strip Moore of all the executive functions that their attorney, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer  advised was possible.

Trustee Betty Zirk explains benefits of a new township hall approved by the trustees with adequate public notice, but defeated on a tie vote by township electors.

“I am sure my client’s (being a plaintiff in the suit and having) engineered the end of the $5 million palace they wanted to build has nothing to do with the board’s concerns…I say that with tongue firmly in cheek,” Nelson said after setting next Monday’s court date to set a court date for a hearing on the merits of Moore’s suit.

“I would encourage anyone who is interested in the case to watch the YouTube video of the last meeting.”

Moore not only seeks the return of her powers, but also, confirmation of the legitimacy of her firing of Ancil Glick partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer and Township Administrator Pam Fender.

Nelson spoke of two court cases upon which he based his motion.

One says that the township supervisor is in charge of hiring and firing employees, as long as there are not more than five paid by the Town Fund. Excluded from the employee count are employees of the assessor and road commissioner, as well as those paid by the General Assistance Fund.

Grafton Township has three bus drivers who fit that category.

“Three are smaller than five,” Nelson said.

Another case rebuked Cicero Town officials for banishing its township collector to a closet and firing the two employees.

Moore’s new office is the township clerk’s old one, one without a window.

Trustees continually point out that the township attorney, selected by Moore, but later dismissed by Moore, “wrote the book.”

Nelson said he was a member of the Illinois Township Attorney’s Association.

“Our association is composed of real lawyers. We don’t write books about township law; we revise township laws.”

Apparently two criminal complaints have been made to the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office by Moore’s antagonists.

One is said to concern manipulation of the private bank accounts of township employees.

“I would categorically deny such accusation,” Nelson said.

The other, more recent, is that financial information has disappeared from township computers.

“The township computers are under the sole custody and control of the township supervisor,” Nelson said.

“They have no right, legal authority or interest in these computers. They are a legislative body.”

“That is an allegation without substance and without meaning. The elected supervisor is the sole custodian of the financial records. It’s really not their complaint to make.

“If the records have disappeared, it’s because of the illegally hired employee (Township Administrator Pam Fender),” Nelson continued.

“It’s a felony to threaten a criminal case to obtain a civil judgment or right,” Nelson pointed out.

Nelson outlined the duties of township trustees:

• They review the bills, audit the bills
• They approve the budget which has to provide adequate space for the assessor, supervisor and town collector to do his or her job.
• They can provide for salaries.
• They can provide conditions, if over five employees.

Township trustees are limited to what the law says.

Grafton Township Board at its March 2nd meeting, which you can see on YouTube. From left to right are Trustees Gerry McMahon, Betty Zirk, Rob LaPorta and Barb Murphy. Supervisor Linda Moore is seen standing.

“These township trustees have stepped way over those bounds,” Nelson charged.

“This is a separation of powers case that involved the fundamental right of people to elect their own political leaders.

“The core issue is that the voters of Grafton Township voted my client in as Grafton Township Supervisor. Their wisdom or lack thereof is no longer at issue.”

Nelson serves as Winnebago County’s Harlem Township Attorney.   That township, north of Rockford, has a population comparable to Grafton’s.

And, who will pay Nelson’s bill?

“I represent her in her official capacity,” he said.

Read this section of the case:

“Supervisor Moore is entitled to legal counsel in her capacity as Grafton Township Supervisor as she is in legal conflict with defendants, and this litigation is necessary to settle the rights, obligations and duties of the parties.  The necessity of payment for legal counsel paid for by Grafton Township is well-settled under the law.  In Wayne Township Board of Auditors, DuPage County v. Ludwig, 154 Ill.App.3d 899, 507 N. E. 2d 199, 204, 107 Ill. Dec. 535, 540 (2nd Dist., 1987) the court held that where an actual conflict exists between a Town Board and one of the town’s officers the town officer is entitled to be represented by independent counsel.  The court went on to say that independent counsel is entitled to a reasonable fee for same.”

McHenry County lies within the 2nd Appellate Court District.

What if Moore wins the case and the trustees won’t follow the judge’s order?

“I would be seeking jail time for contempt,” Nelson said.  If it reaches that stage, it will not be the first time the four trustees have displeased a judge by not obeying a court order.  It happened in the new township hall case, too.

Keri-Lyn Krafthefe

Moore’s seeking judicial approval of her termination of the legal services of Keri-Lyn Krafthefer.

Nelson court document points out that Moore appointed her and says,

“Logic would dictate that Keri-Lyn Krafthefer serves at the pleasure of the Supervisor of Grafton Township.  However, it appears that this is an issue of first impression.”

A link to the full court document can be found here.

“Do you think the trustees have management (power) day-to-day?” Supervisor Linda Moore asked Ancel Glick partner Keri-Lyn Krafterfer.

Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafterfer on the left, Township Administrator Pam Fender on the right.

She replied in the affirmative to which Moore asked her to

“Please put that in writing.”

On the offensive again, Moore asked newly-appointed Township Administrator Pam Fender,

“Do you intend to force your way into my office again?”

Discussion then went to the trustees desire to have internet “live access” to the Quick Books accounting program for themselves and Fender.

“A kid in high school can handle Quick Books,” Trustee Rob LaPorta observed. He added that he would exclude records about public assistance.

Then, back to the newly-designated Township Supervisor’s office again.

Gerry McMahon

“You want me to served General Assistance clients in a room without windows?”

“It has a window,” Gerry McMahon said, but was corrected.

“As long was we’re in the majority, we’re in control,”

said McMahon.

“Do you see any errors we’re making here,” LaPorta asked the attorney.

“No,” was the reply.

Rob LaPorta

Linda Moore

“She’s going to hired another attorney to block this thing,” LaPorta said.

“You’re directing an employee to give orders to an elected officials,” Moore said as the township trustees delegated the switching of offices to Fender.

“Motion for Pam to quarterback the move,” LaPorta said.

“Coordinate moving the offices,” McMahon suggested.

“Pam will direct and manage,” LaPorta offered.

That’s when we learned that he was in television at one time. He starting talking about reading the “script.”

“Take 2.

“…for the Grafton Township Administrator to coordinate the three office move that the Grafton Township Board voted upon tonight until completion.”

‘If you’re talking about Pam doing the directing…”

The motion passed, as others previously 4-1.

Then it was budget time.

Proposed Grafton Township Hall

“I messed up last week,” Trustee Betty Zirk admitted.

“All of the trustees did,” LaPorta agreed.

Then they started talking about the $3.5 million budgeted for the new township hall and how they had incorrectly added in about $600,000 that is sitting in the bank from the sale of the township hall to the township road district.

That’s when I took a break in the hall that lasted until the meeting was adjourned mercifully close to 9 o’clock.

= = = = =

Here is Part 1.

Here is Part 2.

McHenry County Blog has obtained a February 5, 2010, letter to Dorr Township Trustee Barry Lamb, Sr., from Legat Architects’s Marc Rohde.

Dorr Township Garage Additiion drawing by Legat Architects

Included was a conceptual plan of an expanded highway garage at the current location, but the attachments tell a much more interesting story:

• Conceptual Design Plan – Highway Garage
• Referendum Planning Information
• Referendum cost Information

Silly me. I didn’t know architects were in the referendum business.

But, apparently Legat is.

It touts

• the 2005 $105 million Woodstock Unit 200 bond referendum
• the 2000 $24 million Huntley School District 158 bond referendum and
• the 2002 $19 million Huntley School District 158 bond referendum

That’s only the McHenry County part of a Chicagoland list of 20 referendums totaling over $1.3 billion.

There’s more:

Under “Referendum Planning” is

“A hands-on community engagement process brings together experts in each building type, along with communications and graphics specialists, to create responsive referendum campaigns. Clients range from K-12 school districts and community colleges to park districts and municipalities”

Under “Referendum Consulting Services” appears

“Our senior consultants, ranging from past village presidents to former school superintendents, have extensive referendum to help districts:

• Develop board/administrative consensus to reflect community need.
• Integrate pre-referendum strategies with the design process
• plan and schedule timelines for a successful referendum campaign
• Develop leadership of a citizens’ committee
• Create communications strategies and increase public confidence
• Analyze voting strategies including election day activities

And,

“Our in-house communications and graphic design specialists offer a full range of serves, ranging from 3D presentations to press releases to custom print materials such as direct mailers, posters, and signs.”

“In the last ten years, Legat Architects has assisted education institutions in securing $1.137 billion referendum dollars to fund major building programs.”

Included services?

• Referendum consulting
• Master planning
• Conceptual designated
• Cost estimating
• Community presentation facilitation
• Video fly-throughs
• Graphic designated
• Grant writing

And what’s the price?

Dorr Township Hall

Legat says $8,000 will do for starters, plus what appears to be 15%, but I don’t speak architect billing.

How big is the envisioned project?

Here’s the recommended option:

“Option 3 – Upon review of the Township Office site plan, we also feel it is feasible to add on the required space to the existing building, without the need to purchase additional property. As with the previous option, the proposed Highway Garage could be built on the existing site.”

And farther down,

“There is enough room on the current Township Office site to add on the needed spaces, so there is no additional land costs involved. The building can be added onto and renovated at a much lower cost than rebuilding it all new. Finally, the location remains unchanged.”

Oh, yes.

Legat says it will make a “final” presentation to the Dorr Township Board.

That’s after the “Kick-Off / Goal Setting Meeting,” which is just part of “pre-referendum” services.

At least Dorr Township is not trying to avoid a referendum as the Grafton Township Board members did.

Another night at the Huntley Park District complex, another contentious meeting.

$5 million (including interest) Grafton Township Hall that Grafton Township Linda Moore helped stifle before and after wining election last spring.

But, unlike the previous meetings, the real reason for the conflict—Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s decisive role in killing the $5 million (including interest) new township hall—didn’t come up except in revising the budget as the meeting was winding down.

The township board decided to move Moore out of her two-office complex into a windowless office heretofore occupied by the very part-time township clerk.

To the conference room will go Moore’s assistant, right next to the public bathroom.

While Township Trustee Rob LaPorta thought “none of (the instructions ordered by the board the week before had been carried out) but the (provision) of a stapler has been accomplished,” Township Administrator Pam Fender answers repeatedly indicated they had.

Moore went on the offensive, telling the board members she had talked to Assistant Illinois Attorney General Paul Gaynor about criminal violations concerning taking, hiding or destroying public records.

The cover of this month's magazine for township officials: "Supervisor is... manager, coordinator, administrator of township"

“Trustees should not cross over from governance to management,” Moore stated as she
passed out the cover of the latest edition of the township officials’ magazine. On the cover of Township Perspective is this headline:

Supervisor is…
manager, coordinator,
administrator of township

Later Moore accused the trustees of micromanaging township affairs.

“The employee works for the official. The board may have no employee of their own,” she read, apparently from the magazine article.

“That wasn’t a reflection of law,” interjected Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafterfer of Ancel Glick, who often seemed to be in control of the meeting.

‘The Huntley Police say I have the right to have my office locked,” Moore continued.

From left to right, Grafton Township Trustees Gerry McMahon, Betty Zirk, Rob LaPorta and Barbara Murphy.

“Stop threatening us,”

Trustee Gerry McMahon shouted.

“Until we get a letter from the Huntley Police, (it means nothing),” LaPorta said calmly.

“How would she like being at home?”

McMahon thundered.

“We are moving out of her office and into her clerk’s office,” LaPorta continued.

Interrupting, McMahon said, “I’ve heard many townships don’t provide an office.”

= = = = =

Here is Part 2.”>Part 2.

Dorr Township Hall

The following petition has been filed with Dorr Township Clerk Kathleen J. Schlapp by the requisite number of township voters:

From:  The Undersigned Dorr Township Electors

Re:  Request that the township clerk place an item on the township’s annual meeting agenda

We, the undersigned Dorr Township electors, request that Clerk Kathleen J. Schlapp place the following on the Dorr Township’s published April 13, 2010 annual town meeting agenda:

For consideration and approval by township electors:  that the Citizens Planning Committee [CPC] present its September 2009 findings and recommendations asking the electors to vote on the following CPC recommendations:

That the Dorr Township Board be directed to:

1. rebate not less than one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars in unrestricted funds to Dorr Township taxpayers in 2010;
2. ONLY for the Assessor & staff, that more office space be provided at the town hall; and
3. that a 600 T. salt dome be constructed at the garage site @12322 Davis Rd., Woodstock and existing structures be rehabilitated to comply with state, local and federal code.

OR, in the alternative:  Request for an advisory referendum

That the Dorr Township Board certify an advisory question to the McHenry County Clerk so that it is placed on the next regularly scheduled township election:

Shall Dorr Township rebate not less than one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars of unrestricted township funds to township taxpayers?

Grafton Township resident Tammy Lueht asks Township Trustees why they have not appointed the township planning committee approved at last April's Annual Town Meeting.

At the Monday budget hearing Grafton Township residents asked why a Township Planning Commission had not been appointed. Apparently, applicants were solicited and received. This was also the topic of a motion at the last Annual Meeting of the township’s electors.

Now, McHenry County Blog has discovered that Dorr Township—just to the north of Grafton—has such a Citizens Planning Committee and it made a report last September 1st. The report looks at each of the offices and make recommendations which do not include consolidation of operations in one location.

Dorr Township Hall

It appears township officials have been accumulating funds for the purpose of building a new township complex.

The citizen committee recommends asking residents what to do with it. One option would apparently be building a new township hall (while that description is no where used in the report) or rebating the money through the lowering of levies.

Note that the Dorr Township Supervisor Robert Pierce has concerns about privacy similar to the ones expressed by Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore.

I thought others might find it of interest.

TRANSMISSION MEMORANDUM

TO: Dorr Township Board of Trustees

FROM: Dorr Township Citizens Planning Committee

SUBJECT: Report of Recommendation

DATE: Submitted to the Board on September 1, 2009
CC: Township Officials

All recommendations with the exception of those for the Road Commissioner are considered short term while the economy remains unsettled and tax revenues decline. The goal is to use current facilities more efficiently while providing essential town services. Every entity – both private and governmental – is trying to be more resourceful and work within current constraints.

We took the mission to

“…to assist the Dorr Township Board of Trustees to determine whether new facilities are required to carry out its township functions and programs efficiently and to help prepare a presentation to the Dorr Township Board of Trustees, as well as to the citizens of Dorr Township”.

Attached hereto are our recommendations.

We request that the Board of Trustees respond to our recommendations in writing to the various committee members by October 21, 2009. The committee members’ list is attached.

DORR TOWNSHIP CITIZENS PLANNING COMMITTEE

Report of Recommendations – September 8, 2009

I. Assessor

Findings: The committee unanimously agrees that the current space is inadequate. This office has the most client volume and an increase in workload is anticipated. In the interest of client service, it would be ideal to provide a counter with monitors allowing easy access to property records thereby reducing on staff involvement.

Suggested Solutions:

1. Reconfigure current space eliminating the board room in favor of increasing assessor’s square footage. Modify the space to include a counter. Utilize the back door for ingress. Board meetings could be held elsewhere – banks holding township funds, for example.

2.Rent commercial space.

II. Township Clerk

Findings: The clerk has no township work space or dedicated storage and currently schedules herself to access the office during off hours. She should be provided with a computer linked to the printer and necessary supplies for use at her convenience during business hours. She should also be reimbursed for all business expenses including the cost of refreshments for town clerk meetings.

Suggested Solutions: The committee unanimously agrees that space be found to accommodate her needs and that all election material, township business records, as well as road district records be consolidated in fire-resistant storage boxes at the office.

1. Utilize a section of the board room if it is not reconfigured to meet the assessor’s needs.

2. A corner of Sue Brokaw’s office could be used.

While the concern the clerk voiced about a deputy clerk is not within our purview, we recommend an opinion be solicited from the township’s current lawyer. The previous lawyer considered the drafting of Sue Brokaw to function in the clerk’s stead a conflict of interest.

III.Road Commissioner

Dorr Township Garage

Findings: Although the Commissioner appreciates the desire to consolidate all town functions in one location, he also feels that the current garage facilities are well placed to allow personnel to reach all segments of town roads without going through the center to town. Concern was also expressed about mixing the public and heavy equipment. The committee believes environmental mitigation is required to address salt runoff into the adjacent wetlands and eventually into the underlying aquifers and groundwater.

Suggested Solutions:

The committee recommends that the facility should stay where it is
with the following changes:

1. Construct a salt dome to fit on the current site. The mixing of salt with other components should be done in such a way as to eliminate any potential for leaching into adjacent wetlands. We also strongly suggest that the supermix anti-ice liquid developed by Mark DeVries for the county be thoroughly investigated because it reduces salt usage. Last winter Algonquin Township used 2100 tons of salt for 60 miles while Dorr Township used 3100 tons for 35 miles of road.

Make necessary repairs to the salt building to convert it to cold storage and consider adding block ‘n’ roll doors. This would respond to the concern of storing mowers should the old Farm & Fleet building be sold.

Determine electrical needs and arrange for necessary repairs and/or upgrades.

The barn needs cleaning, painting and paneling and would be enhanced by the installation of skylights.

Remove all non-essential items including engine blocks, tires, etc.

Buy a flammable fuel containment storage unit and install floor pans under inside
units. This is an EPA requirement.

If space is at a premium, consider eliminating salt storage for other entities.

IV. Supervisor

Concerns were expressed about confidentiality relative to General Assistance applications and lack of space to offer additional programs. While the Supervisor has enumerated programs he would like to offer, no space requirements or financial costs for these programs have been determined.

Suggested Solutions:

1. The confidentiality concern would be resolved if the Assessor’s office and entrance are separated from the front desk.

2.Relocate the Supervisor to shared space with Sue Brokaw.

3.Modify the existing Supervisor’s office to include a partitioned counter.

V. Town Hall

The Supervisor has indicated that the physical plant requires some upgrading such as window replacement and heating/ac update.

Township Outreach:

A questionnaire should be developed and sent to township
residents. We suggest the following concerns:

1.Seek input regarding desired programs for youth, seniors and all ages

2.Ask if different business hours are desirable

3. Present taxpayer constituents with financial options ranging from spending the accumulated funds to rebates and lowering of levies.

Report submitted by: Dorr Township Citizens Planning Committee
Ted Andersen
Lynde Anderson
Jane L. Collins
Steve Kaiser
Quinn Keefe
Caryl Lemanski
Diane Range Magnuson
Kelli Myers
Vivian Sodini

If you drive past D’Andrea Banquets this evening between 5:30 and 7:30, my bet is the parking lot will be jammed.

The McHenry Lawyers for Justice Schostok will be hosting a $30 fund raiser with payment at the door.

Besides the honoree Justice Mary S. Schostok, her colleague Ann B. Jorgensen will be there as a “special guest.”

So far, I have seen the two appointed 2nd Appellate Court Justices selected from among hundreds of applicates by Illinois Supreme Court Justice Bob Thomas twice times in McHenry County.

McHenry County State Rep. and GOP Central Committee Chairman Mike Tryon poses with Appellate Court Justices Mary Schostok and Ann Jorgensen at the Nunda Township Republican Picnic this summer.

First they were out campaigning this summer at the Nunda Township Republican Picnic.

Appellate Court Justice Mary Schostok (behind the table) and Ann Jorgensen greet precinct committeemen as they pass out literature and signs in Crystal Lake last Friday night.

Then, last Friday night, they were greeting precinct committeemen at the McHenry County Republican Central Committee’s literature pickup.

I’m sure no attorney with a general practice wants to be in appellate court, but, every once in a while cases do get appealed.

At $30 to attend the affair the price is certainly within the reach of attorneys in McHenry County. I would assume members of the public who would like to attend would be welcome as well.

Probably not attending will be the Grafton Township Trustees who wanted to build a township hall without adequate public notice or getting approval at the ballot box. The two lady justices, along with Crystal Lakes Sue Hutchison put the kabosh on that in a decision earlier this year.

Nunda Township resident Gerry Walsh filed a complaint with the Illinois State Board of Elections complaining that a political group had been allowed to meet at the Nunda Township building without paying a fee.

A final order has been entered in the case with the State Board finding
“That the complaint was not filed on justifiable grounds.”

The State Board dismissed the case, which Walsh could have appealed to McHenry County Circuit Court, but, apparently, did not.

Heisler told me any Nunda Township was welcome to meet in the township hall.

Believe it or not, newly-elected Township Supervisor Linda Moore and the four township trustees who resent her having been elected because of the monkey wrench she threw into the $5 million (including interest) new township hall project agreed tonight.

Without discussion, they voted 5-0 to authorize “the return to Harris Bank of the $3,500,000 in loan proceeds with interest to the date of the return in exchange for the cancellation of the Debt Certificates currently outstanding against Grafton Township.”

Of course, Moore didn’t throw the monkey wrench, except by getting elected on the platform that a new township building should not be constructed without voter approval at the ballot box.

After a contentious annual town meeting at which a tie vote to approve the construction of the new building resulted in the motion’s loss, Judge Michael Caldwell ruled in Dan Ziller, Jr., et al’s suit, that, because of inadequate notice, the effort to build the new township building was dead in the water.