McHenry County Blog

“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?”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Continuing with Judge Michael Caldwell’s comments, today we look at three expenditures which the Township Trustees ordered and for which Supervisor Linda Moore was withholding payment when the judge ruled were legitimate.

They are

• payments for transcripts
• videoing of meetings and
• making copies for audience members

On a matter of continuing contention, however, Moore won.

Trustee Rob LaPorta has been insistent that he wants to be able to look at the township books in a “read-only” format over the internet.

Moore’s investigations of the accounting system being used, Quick Books, led her to conclude this was not possible, so she has made them available during office hours at the township office, access that made it difficult for LaPorta to avail himself of.

Here is the part of the judge’s concluding comments in the hearing two weeks ago:

THE COURT: Q & A Reporting. The trustees have a right to have a transcript of their proceedings if they wish. The Q & A Reporting bill should be paid.

Excellence in Copying. If you want to have additional matters from the agenda printed up to be available for the public for the use and inspection at the meeting, that certainly is a legitimate cost.

Point of Video, the same thing.

Now, on the access to the bills, the court’s going to find that the access to the bills — to the financial records as described by me today by Linda Moore in her testimony is adequate to comply with the court’s order.

She has stated that the records are available during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. They are available at other times by appointment.

I don’t find that to be unreasonable on its face.

I am accepting Ms. Moore’s description of what she has made available on the laptop computer because, quite frankly, she is the only one that I know of who has actually seen it or used it or set it up.

The motion here is brought upon basically suspicion, innuendo, supposition and conjecture; that, because the trustees don’t like it. They want remote access, remote access isn’t necessary.

The problem I have with the Internet is that once you get on the Internet there are all sorts of opportunities for mischief, that quite frankly, in this township we don’t need.

I don’t need it and you don’t need it.

McHenry County Blog has been posting conclusions of Judge Michael Caldwell concerning whether and from where Grafton Township bills should be paid. We have looked at bills relating to the construction of a new township hall, the forensic examination of computer memory, installing a new lock on Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s office after she was kicked out by the Township Trustees.

Today we look at a mailing that the Township Trustees put out prior to the Annual Town Meeting at Huntley High School.

Here’s the interchange between Ancel Glink attorney Thomas DiCianni and Judge Caldwell about the mailing:

THE COURT: I will not approve — how did this mailing start, the mailing to Del Webb and why does Del Webb get mailings and the rest of the township doesn’t?

This mailing only went to Sun City residents.

MR. DiCIANNI: Because they weren’t coming to the meetings and didn’t know about it.

THE COURT: They can do it like anybody else does, read it in the newspaper. That’s where it is. It’s in the Herald.

MR. DiCIANNI: Well, it doesn’t make it an illegal expenditure, your Honor, it’s a –

This side invites people to the Annual Town Meeting.

THE COURT: I think it’s purely political.

MR. DiCIANNI: So I –

THE COURT: I think it is political because it appeals to a voting block.

MR. DiCIANNI: There has been no evidence that that voting block has any particular predilection politically either way.

 

Bill from MLSMaing for the postcard to Sun City which Judge Michael Caldwell says was "political" and Township Supervisor Linda Moore "was justified in not paying it."

THE COURT: You target a mailing to a seniors’ community and you want me to believe that it’s not political?

The mailhouse paid $1,500.72 in postage for the postcard to Sun City residents.

MR. DiCIANNI: They would be the last ones to –

THE COURT: It would be hard to –

MR. DiCIANNI: They would be the last ones who would want to approve the building, if that’s what the insinuation is from the point –

THE COURT: I can’t say that.

MR. DiCIANNI: Well, there are suppositions there, your Honor, that I think are not part of the evidence.

THE COURT: She was justified in not paying it.

In the latest hearing on the continuing Grafton Township separation of powers case, Judge Michael Caldwell continues to tell the township what bills should be paid and which should not.

 

Township Supervisor Linda Moore has been withholding bills she thought should not be paid.

Yesterday, he decided that bills incurred before his decision about the legitimacy of the new township hall favored so strongly by the township trustees should be paid.

Supervisor Linda Moore had been withholding payment pending such a court decision.

Judge Caldwell now turns to the bill from Forensicon, with whom Trustees Betty Zirk and Robert LaPorta signed a contract:

THE COURT: To this day I have a serious question on the legitimacy of the Forensicon bill which only grows every time it’s presented in front of me.

It’s approved for $10,000, now it’s 19. I don’t know why.

I don’t even know how Forensicon was hired.

I don’t see — I have never seen in any of the things that have been presented to me any itemization, any proof, any verification as to how this contract was entered into, who did it, when it happened and how it happened.

Grafton Township Trustees Betty Zirk and Rob LaPorta.

My suspicion is, and this is very dangerous to the people who may have done it, is that a couple of trustees went off on their own and hired somebody else and then brought it into the board as a fait accompli and said, “Here’s our computer expert, pay it.”

If that’s what happened, this may not be a legitimate bill of Grafton Township, somebody may have contracted to pay for this out of their own pocket.

Elgin Key & Lock is not payable from township funds.

That was number one.

It was a bill that was incurred by a trustee on their own to do something which was plainly illegal and which I found to be illegal.

Forensicon is not approved for payment and it’s open to — if you want it paid, pay it out of township money, you’re going to have to prove it.

You’re going to have to bring me a special proceeding on that because I will not approve it.

The Elgin Lock & Key bill was $381.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =

Link to the final Forensicon contract with Grafton township.

The authors of the 2009 edition of Township Officials of Illinois’ “Laws and Duties Handbook” are from the law firm of Ancel Glink.

The handbook’s lead author is Grafton Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer. The 37-page court order from McHenry County Judge Michael Caldwell upheld her firm’s dismissal by Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore.

Not only she, but her method of allowing the Grafton Township Board of Trustees majority to take control of day-to-day operations–via creation of a Township Administrator, the first in McHenry County–was ruled a violation of the township supervisor’s elected role. See

• Judge Michael Caldwell Grants Linda Moore Day-to-Day Operating Authority of Grafton Township, Power to Hire and Fire Employees and Township Attorney – Part 1
• Grafton Township Court Order Fires Pam Fender and Ancel Glick – Part 2

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.

Yesterday, McHenry County Blog summarized Judge Michael Caldwell’s conclusions in the lawsuit filed by Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore against her fellow Grafton Township Board members, Trustees Gerry McMahon, Rob LaPorta, Barbara Murphy and Betty Zirk.

Today, we’ll look at his logic.

After summarizing the testimony, Judge Caldwell wrote:

“There was voluminous evidence of

• canceled gasoline credit cards belonging to a department of the township,
• the failure to halt direct deposit of employees’ paychecks,
• Moore’s attempts to put the meetings of the township board on the the internet via the assessor’s website and the Illinois Township Officials Association,
• misdirected mail,
• the changes in the bus schedule (labeled as a “…complete failure…” by a single resident),
• the complete history of the Grafton Township Food Pantry,
• the history of the terms of Supervisors [Mildred] Ruth and [John] Rossi and
• an evidentiary comparison of the workings of Nunda Township with Grafton Township.

“None of this has any relevance to these proceedings”

“It may be interesting, even entertaining for some, but on the whole it is immaterial and irrelevant….It is nothing more than evidence of

• simple mistakes,
• poor judgment and
• a past that is over and not about to return any time soon.

“As such, none of this has any relevance to nor does it contribute to any decision that I must make regarding the state of affairs in Grafton Township.”

In his analysis section, the Judge pointed concluded,

“That there is an all-out, political and personal war between the Township Supervisor and the Board of Trustees of Grafton Township is readily apparent from the evidence.

“Not only do these parties intensely dislike one another, but both sides of this controversy seem dedicated to all out conflict, all of the time, regardless of its effect on township government or its programs.

“At the heart of these proceedings is the toxic relationship between the township board and the supervisor….

“Any ruling I make can affect some aspects of the relationship but not all of them.

“I cannot judicially regulate impolite, abusive, or course discourse between parties. It may be rude and hurtful, but the harm is not irrevocable and no one has the ‘right’ to compel others to be polite.

“Someone far wiser than I once said, when commenting on the First Amendment,

‘It takes a thick skin to be an American citizen.’

“Additionally, politics has always been a rough and tumble pursuit. Apparently in Grafton Township, it has been elevated to the level of a blood sport.

“That being said, there is nothing this court can do to compel these parties to be “…nice…” to one another, as was requested in one of the prayers of relief.

“The only think I can offer is the advice of the late President Harry Truman who said,

‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.’”

Ancel Glink partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer looks up a point of township law after she had been dismissed by Supervisor Linda Moore.

Judge Caldwell then indicated he would rule on the “supervisor/ board relationship.”

In other words, on the separation of powers.

And, how those powers were balanced was reported in yesterday’s article.

The Judge confirmed Supervisor Moore’s authority to fire Township Administrator Pam Fender and Township Attorney Ancel Glink, usually represented by Keri-Lyn Krafthefer at township meetings.

Judge Caldwell’s reversal of the political strategy presumably concocted by Krafthefer to allow the Township Trustees to take control of what they could not win at the ballot box is nothing short of stunning.

He confirmed Moore’s authority to run the day-to-day business of the township the same way that a strong mayor or a village president does.

Caldwell did say the Township Trustees could set the agenda at the beginning of every meeting, had approval authority over large contracts and should have the ability to access township financial records.

Among unanswered questions are the following:

• whether forensic computer firm Forensicon’s bill would have to be paid with taxpayer dollars or by the two trustees–Betty Zirk and Rob LaPorta–who signed the contract
• whether taxpayers have any call on the money that was paid to Township Administrator Pam Fender and Ancel Glink after Moore dismissed them from township service
• whether paying off the Town Hall loan to the Township
  Road District mandated at the Annual Meeting requires Board approval
• whether the severance clause in the contract approved by the Trustees for Pam Fender is enforceable
• whether the Supervisor can select the outside auditor (since advice and consent is required for the attorney’s selection

Judge Caldwell did rule that both Moore attorney John Nelson and the Trustees’ Ancel Glink litigator Thoma DiCianni and others in his firm would be paid by the taxpayers for services rendered in this lawsuit.

When I last looked at the bills, the Trustees were outspending the Supervisor 4 to 1.

Part 1 is here.