Forensicon Bills Almost $20,000

The firm Ancel Glink engaged to look at what Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore did to her computers has submitted a bill for $19,880.31.

That a big chunk of change.

Let’s look at the court-related expenses, found on the June 1st invoice below.

Court Appearance

  • 05/27/10 0.80 Client Communications with Ancel Glink re: court and emails to counsel and township officials. $350.00/hr $280.00
  • 05/03/10 1.50 Consulting re: letter received $350.00/hr $525.00
  • 06/01/10 0.50 Consulting re: Helped prep YS for court $350.00/hr $175.00
  • 06/01/10 1.80 Travel to Woodstock $125.00/hr $225.00
  • 06/01/10 2.50 Travel from Woodstock $125.00/hr $312.50
  • 06/01/10 2.60 Court appearance $450.00/hr $1,170.00

SUBTOTAL:  $1,707.50

Take a look at the bills below, if you have the interest.  Any image can be enlarged by clicking on it.

First, there is the bill for March 29th.  Note it was sold to a Matthew Smith:

March 30th’s bill comes next and Matthew Smith’s name again appears:

Skip to April 9th, shortly before the April 13th Annual Town Meeting.  Matthew Smith’s name is still on the invoice.

June 1st is the next activity.  Now Grafton Township Trustees Rob LaPorta’s and Betty Zirk’s names appear on the “Sold to” line.

Then, there is a summary page, issued June 9th.  Again Zirk and LaPorta are named.


Forensicon Bills Almost $20,000 — 21 Comments

  1. Hello Grafton Twp. Trustees. $20,000? This is “good” business 101?

    This Forensicon bill is now apparently double what you expected it to be.

    3 of you were at the helm during the $3.5M plus (total around $5M) for the building mess. You couldn’t be happy with just a better building with a bit more space, you had to go for a “mansion”. The judge rulled against you in the first case AND the appeal also said NO. If you are still saying you knew what you were doing and it was right and that you had good advice, that seems to have been a bad belief on your part. Yet, as soon as you could, you started pressing for a big building purchase that had to have a lot of changes to suit your “needs”/wants? I’d ask what you were/are thinking, however, I don’t think you ARE thinking. You’re just emotionally determined to get what you want – whether it’s TRULY NEEDED – or not. As far as I can determine, the Public that pays for all of this – doesn’t want it. The 1800s are over, “you” aren’t the only govt. game in town anymore.

    You have now racked up tens of thousands of legal bills plus the rebuttal legal bills to be paid for with taxpayers’ money. What’s is that now, over $100,000? Over $150,000?

    You hired / appointed an administrator to do what was formerly under the Supervisor of YOUR choice. A GENEROUS salary, benefits, and contract with NICE severance included was piled on for taxpayers to pay.

    If you know nothing else, the public didn’t elect you to be Supervisors and it didn’t elect you to have one of your own doing any bookkeeping/accounting with the previous Supervisor. From what I can see, that Trustee also apparently voted on her own work. It wasn’t her job to do then and it sure the heck isn’t her job to do now.

    Strong willed people run for office. Strong willed people get elected. You don’t have to like each other, you just have to stop throwing away money and stick to what you are supposed to do. The Twp. doesn’t need 5 chiefs.

  2. Aw Cledottis, calling the truth a rant doesn’t change the fact it’s the truth.
    Nice try though. Enjoy the beautiful weather.

  3. You are right, Dee, the township doesn’t need 5 chiefs. It needs 1 chief who is willing and able to do her job and work with the other elected officials by the people.

    Linda showed everyone that she had no interest or intent to work with the trustees by being part of the lawsuit against the district before she even took office. Suing someone hardly sends the message “I know we have our differences, but we need to work together to get the job done.”

    What was the purpose of Linda being part of that lawsuit? The only purpose I see is a slap in the face of the trustees. Hardly the way to start a new working relationship. Obviously, nothing has changed since then, either.

  4. Just a heads up…

    If Linda Moore would have stated prior to the court ordeal what she had done, Forensicon’s services would not have been required. Instead, she waits until legal fees and Forensicon bills rack up to admit that she removed documents from the Township computers and office.

    Does it seem like that’s the trustees fault? Really?

    Look at it objectively and it seems that Linda Moore should shoulder her fair share of the blame – and all the blame for Forensicon bills.

    Honesty is definitely not Supervisor Moore’s policy.

  5. Well said “Not a Grafton Resident” …it seems like a lot of folks are giving Ms. Moore a free ride but there is a lot of blame to share here. I’m glad the land and building deal was unwound, but the township needs to move forward and the current players (on both sides) don’t seem to be capable of doing that.

  6. Everyone has emotions. People who run for office are not exactly shrinking violet people. There is plenty of “fire in the gut” to go around. Let’s see, 4 against 1 – specifically 1 who didn’t agree with the “office mansion” (OM) and the taxpayers’ bucks being thrown at the “office mansion” without adequately informing the public (or whatever the official reason was from the court).

    If the Township Supervisor and Trustees from the past refused to willingly hold off on the “OM”, exactly how were the Taxpayers/Residents supposed to protect themselves and stop concrete from being poured and the “OM” built? Oh, right, that’s why we have a court system. I suppose sending them a gift of popcorn with a bow on it and a note saying “Pretty please, stop!” they would have held off? Let’s all be real about that.

    They didn’t want to have a planning committee then and they don’t want one now. They actually are there to represent everyone not just their chosen ones. They don’t have to like it but it’s part of their job. No planning committee? For them it’s no problem. They just hired/appointed someone with a major title. Suddenly, there’s apparently a search and a push to purchase an existing building. Some think things that are going on smack of Huntley Chicago style. We can be better than that.

    As to following the directions of the court to unwind the deals that were made and the huge turnout at the recent Annual meeting. Why are the Trustees still sitting on $611,00 in the bank and questioning an additional ? $89,000 that’s supposed to be paid back to the Transportation Dept. so it can pay off the loan tied to the “OM” deals and stop the daily interest bleeding? It was, as far as I know, understood that the legal agreement was supposed to include a reference to the lease deal? It’s not the Transportation Dept.’s fault that most if not all of the bucks weren’t repaid. It’s not the Taxpayers fault the loan is unpaid and kachinging interest down the tube. Maybe the Transportation Dept. should sue the Township? It’s been awhile since the directions came down – oh, right, it’s going to be discussed at a June meeting – maybe even tonight.

    Cooperation doesn’t seem to be a strong suit with the Trustees. Perhaps they can put down their egos long enough to “cooperate” with the Taxpayers and Twp. Residents? What a novel idea.

    Frankly, no one is perfect.

  7. Dee,

    The tangent you are running off on is one that we’ve heard over and over and over. Quit beating the poor horse….IT’S DEAD ALREADY!

    Can we stick to discussing this blog entry? The cost of having Linda Moore as a Supervisor…as in legal and investigative costs….

  8. Not a grafton resident, I do not believe that for one minute,however lets get the ball rolling again. If the trustees, some who may have been here when Huntley was formed want the monument built, yes NGR that is what this is all about, if you want to believe it or not why don’t they pool their resources and build it.Seeing that they are dead set on wasting the taxpayers money because they did not get their new playpen is getting very expensive.O.K. NGR post about how wrong I am again as you usually do. Facts are not part of your vocabulary. I hope when this is all over you will also post a thank you to Linda Moore for saving $5,000,000 of the taxpayers money. No I didn’t think you would!

  9. Hop on board the crazy train with Moore and her two followers 🙂

  10. How is anyone supposed to thank LM for saving $5,000,000 of the taxpayer’s money when she is on the road to spending that in legal fees and investigations that she purposely refuses to help with? I know Cadman, it’s all about the building.

    The building.

    The building.

    It was my impression that the building has been stopped….now what? What has she done now? What is she planning on doing to help the residents of Grafton now? If you say stop the building, I’m going to puke. What good ideas does she have to help residents? At least the Administrator who LM supporters so loathe has ideas about helping residents and assisting them. More than can be said for Moore whose only platform in life is to stop a building and cause havoc to all those around her.

  11. Not a Grafton Resident, are you one of Linda Moore’s relatives? Can you please tell us why you took out a restraining order against Linda?

  12. I took out a restraining order against Linda Moore? What rumor are you spreading c.kay?

  13. Four (4) Trustees think it makes sense to spend $185 an hour to have a lawyer go to all the meetings and essentially hold their little hands. That’s not business wisdom – especially when 3 of them are not new on the block.

    Did they put a limit on Forensicon charges or just say “Send us the bill when you’re done?” Did they think that Forensicon would show up for free in court? Business wisdom? Nope.

  14. Not a Grafton Resident – I’m just asking.

    Dee – If Linda did not diddle with the computer records there would be no need for Forensicon.

  15. For Dee and Alan, did Linda tell Forensicon to stop the investigation, that according to her they were not properly hired by the township? No, she allowed the investigation to continue, so that now not only do we have the Forensicon bill to deal with, but we will have the addtional legal fees when they sue the township for the bill she refuses to pay.

    While they were scanning the computers looking for missing financial files, did Linda come forward and state that she had removed the files because she had security concerns? No, she allowed the investigation to proceed.

  16. Sorry C….I just would be very insulted to be associated to LM in any way, shape or form. It speaks volumes to me when your own family memberS (yep, plural meaning not just one) take out restraining orders against you.

  17. These legal games are Moore’s way of raising taxes folks!! In Year 1, she spends to her heart”s content. Then in Year 2, she cries about no money, and goes nuts with a Max % increase, which will hit residents hard. BANG — a massive increase without a referen-DUMB. Instant cash and no accountability to taxpayers. That’s Moore’s legacy: new taxes.


    I will be happy to hand out Kleenex to all the “old time” Huntley residents after they realize that there are “new” residents in this community that CARE!!!!!

    Because of all this court crap, what is really getting done???????? I would venture to say NOTHING!!!!!!

    Linda and crew GO AWAY!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *