Linda Moore Tells of Second Levy Meeting, Rob LaPorta Comments

I have bumped this up because of a comment that Grafton Township Trustee Rob LaPorta made. It is now included in the article.

Those attending last Monday's Grafton Township meeting.

An email that took less time to post than attending Monday night’s Grafton Township re-do of the tax levy it passed last week.   Tonight’s meeting lasted about 25 minutes, about twice as long as the first one.

Dear Friends,

Thank you for attending the Grafton Township Special Board Meeting tonight.

  1. When I calculated the levy before the first Special Meeting on the 20th, I multiplied 4.999%, per the wishes of the trustees, by last year’s levy, rather than by the extension.
  2. Apparently, Assessor Ottley realized the error shortly after the special meeting on the 20th and called in Trustees Murphy and Zirk, who then relayed his concerns to me. Unfortunately, neither Assessor Ottley or the Trustees noticed the error during the 20 days posting time frame prior to the special meeting on the 20th.
  3. Fortunately, tonight, at another special meeting (27th), we were able to correct the error.
  4. I stand firm in my conviction, that the economy is so poor at this time, that Grafton Township residents should not pay any increase at all to their government. That is why I voted against increasing the levy at both special meetings called by the Trustees on the 20th and 27th of December. Unfortunately, I was the only board member who voted against increasing residents’ taxes and the motion passed.

Sincerely,

Linda Moore
Grafton Township Supervisor

= = = = = =

After this was posted, Trustee Rob LaPorta wrote the following comment:

Please note the tax increase that Mrs. Moore is referring to is 11 cents ($.11) per $100,000.00 home value.

So, if you own a home valued at $400,000.00, your tax will increase 44 cents ($.44).

The Trustees agreed with the Assessor’s recommendation towards this increase; of which the Assessor also explained to the Board that if Grafton Township did not confirm this very small increase to taxpayers, that the Grafton Township will be at risk of losing over $54,000.00 of tax revenues.

Each Trustee is highly confident of the taxing-conservative and fiscal-responsible decision that was completed.

The Audit of Grafton Township’s Financial Records will begin soon, and will include analysis of the accuracy of all Township Financial Records that were taken from Grafton Township offices to Mrs. Moore’s home.

Moore then replied,

Rob,
Can you explain how we will lose $54,000 in tax revenue in more detail?

Thank you for your help on this.

Linda Moore

Another person suggested Moore was not reading LaPorta’s comment correctly, after which Moore posted this:

Thank you for the correction.

Rob,

Please explain how we would be “at-risk” for losing $54,000 in tax revenue.

Thank you for your help.


Comments

Linda Moore Tells of Second Levy Meeting, Rob LaPorta Comments — 39 Comments

  1. Please note the tax increase that Mrs. Moore is referring to is 11 cents ($.11) per $100,000.00 home value.

    So, if you own a home valued at $400,000.00, your tax will increase 44 cents ($.44).

    The Trustees agreed with the Assessor’s recommendation towards this increase; of which the Assessor also explained to the Board that if Grafton Township did not confirm this very small increase to taxpayers, that the Grafton Township will be at risk of losing over $54,000.00 of tax revenues.

    Each Trustee is highly confident of the taxing-conservative and fiscal-responsible decision that was completed.

    The Audit of Grafton Township’s Financial Records will begin soon, and will include analysis of the accuracy of all Township Financial Records that were taken from Grafton Township offices to Mrs. Moore’s home.

  2. No matter the reason ,the trustees will never back Linda Moore about anything.

    They are set on retaliation toward her and that is their only tactic.

    This is is great example of their lack of caring about the taxpayer who may be losing his/ her house or be unemployed.

    We must get even with Linda at all costs.

    How sad that all the trustees cannot be replaced right now.

  3. Rob,
    Can you explain how we will lose $54,000 in tax revenue in more detail?
    Thank you for your help on this.
    Linda Moore

  4. Linda, Re-read what Rob wrote. He said “at risk”. Don’t make this into something more than it is.

    Thank you for your help on this.

  5. According to Judge’s ruling, the trustees overstepped their boundaries. Regardless your personal feelings toward Linda Moore, you need to set them aside and work for the betterment of the township. If the trustees cannot move beyond the bitterness, then you need to step aside. Stop airing your dirty laundry in public and start acting like professionals.

  6. Thank you for the correction.
    Rob,
    Please explain how we would be “at-risk” for losing $54,000 in tax revenue.

    Thank you for your help.

  7. Linda, Since you keep asking Trustee LaPorta for answers will YOU please answer these:

    1.) Linda, What is your goal and vision for Grafton Township, the community and it’s residents?

    2.) Linda, What do you want to accomplish in the next couple of years?

    3.) Linda, Do you intend on running for re-election?

    Thanks in advance!

  8. A comment from FEN:

    “It’d probably help to have an audit of the township books since Moore took office, but non-compliance of the judges order seems to be the foremost issue on Moore’s “To Do” list. I guess accurate levy calculations weren’t high on her list either. She wanted to be in charge and now we have reason #32 in why she cannot be trusted with township finances. DOH!”

    Linda, Why have the township books not been audited?

  9. The township books are required by statute to be audited annually. The trustees would like to use the same auditor that was used during three of the four years they were in office with the former Supervisor. Unfortunately, this auditor has not been willing to perform the audit while we are in litigation. We are currently still in litigation. I have asked the board to add to the agenda an item to appoint an auditor, however the board has refused. I have found four auditors who are willing to perform the audit while we are litigation. The state comptroller’s office has declined an additional extension on our audit. Hopefully, the board will allow an agenda item to take action on appointing an auditor at our January meeting.

  10. Let me guess, Linda. The 4 auditors that you found have either Moore or Borhart as a last name? Why would ANYONE accept your recommendation for an auditor as you ARE the reason why one is necessary.

    So what if the trustees want to use the same auditor? They didn’t have problems until you snaked your way into office. (Remember conning the residents of Del Webb into thinking that there would be tax increases if they didn’t vote for you?)

  11. Yes, Linda, please stand by your conviction, but between you and me, the trial usually comes first. Will you also stand by your husband’s conviction as well – or just blame the trustees yet again? Lastly, I am surprised no one explained “at risk” through the whole transportation grant mess. That risk is now a reality thanks to you.!

  12. move forward to what, Linda? You already targeted the food pantry. repeatedly. took financial records to your HOME. your HOME. left Seniors out in the cold with your shenanigans last winter. Lost a desperately needed transportation grant.

    what exactly are you trying to move toward, Linda Moore?

    You are in your late 50s, right? You are going to be a senior citizen in less than a decade, you’d think you would treat them with a bit more respect.

    And I am laughing at you accusing others of hostility – aren’t you the one with restraining orders against you from family members?

  13. The ONLY way that this township will move forward is WITHOUT Linda Moore in office. Period. End of story.

  14. It’s not all that uncommon to change staff, consultants, lawyers, auditors when someone new is elected or hired. Someone with a fresh eye isn’t necessarily evil. Heck, the person/company may even find a better or more accurate way to do things or to show them on reports. Like Trustees, Board Members, DC officials, etc., people can just get too set in their ways or too comfortable running things as they have always been run. “Buddies” can form too close relationsips to the detriment of the entity whether it’s a ladies’ social club or a govt. Term limits are a great idea. It doesn’t mean the person in a position is bad, it just allows for new ideas, new thinking, etc.

    Personally, whether it’s with a public entity or a private company, I wouldn’t want to use the same auditor from the past and I wouldn’t want to use the same lawyer from the past. It’s not personal, it’s business. That was then and this is now – time to get over it. Find someone both “sides” can agree on to do an unbiased, honest, well informed job. It might be an improvement or equal and if so, it’s no big deal. If it doesn’t work out, go back to the drawing board and check out the options the next time.

    And if both “sides” can’t agree on one, I would suggest looking at the judge’s ruling and any later comments to see whether or not he might think that Trustees repeatedly saying no to multiple options presented to them is reasonable or unreasonable.

    As to “snaking” one’s way into office – how long did it take the Township powers at that time to get the FULL multi-million dollar cost (INCLUDING interest) of the Grafton “Mansion” building out to the public? Was it simply volunteered or was the information dragged out? How about the repayment schedule versus money that was projected to be available? Was the loan really supposed to be for 20 years or was it supposed to be limited to 10 years according to Township law? Was the big pile of loan bucks properly identified on the financial reports as to what it was for (the building project) or was it pretty much a non-specific multi-million dollar capital asset? Were the meetings/minutes/agendas specific enough so that they public knew what was going? Did the judge find whatever was done or not done by the former Supervisor and then Trustees to be lacking in some way and say some version of “Go back to square one.”? Did the Appeals case end up the same way? And in the recent case which was essentially about separation of powers, which side pretty much won most of the marbles?

    Voters didn’t vote for a perfect person. They voted for common sense and for not spending millions on a group’s personal or political wants instead of needs.

  15. Thanks for bringing up the “building” again and again and again….etc. Aileen. I had almost forgotten.

    Common sense???? Thank you for making me laugh. I needed that!!

    How about all the money for Moore’s lawyers?

    Here’s a question. Will the township be flipping the bill when Moore’s husband sits in front of the trial jury in April? Just curious.

  16. Aileen, doesn’t your husband work for Linda Moore? Voters voted based on a LIE that taxes would go up. Sun City isn’t exactly a fan of Linda Moore anymore though.

    Maybe when Linda is out of job, she can work righting stories for Cal too, just like Larry Snow.

    Maybe it will keep them both out of legal trouble such as restraining orders by family members or driving without insurance.

  17. Aileen, doesn’t your husband work for Linda Moore? Voters voted based on a LIE that taxes would go up. Sun City isn’t exactly a fan of Linda Moore anymore though.

    Maybe when Linda is out of job, she can work writing stories for Cal too, just like Larry Snow.

    Maybe it will keep them both out of legal trouble such as restraining orders by family members or driving without insurance.

  18. To get back to Linda’s request to have Rob Laporta explain why the township would be ask risk to loose out on 54K.

    I think she was at the same meeting last night that had Bill Ottley explain the whole thing.

    did she not listen to his explaination of the fuel tax which was lost to the road district becuase a previous board failed to levy enough.

    If I am not mistaken it was in the amount of about 45K. If anyone has any questions about this I suggest that they call the Accessor’s office and speak with Mr. Ottley-he is the expert on this. I appreciate the fact that he realized that an incorrect number was used to figure the levy.

    If the original numbers would have been used then the levy would have been over 5% and since we did not black box the clerks office could have thrown it out and we would not have gotten any tax dollars.

    It was oriignally approved going on the fact that the superviosr prepares the levy and we assumed that the numbers were correct. (ok I know never asusme anything)

    This was an easy fix and did not need to become another drama however, that is what everything becomes.

    All that needed to be said is that the incorrect number was used and we needed to amend it.

    Instead the constant blame thrown at the trustees comes out. It is simple.

    The supervisor prepares the levy and she alone used the wrong numbers.

    It was discovered and she was asked to correct it. Plain and simple.

  19. What???

    “The supervisor prepares the levy and she alone used the wrong numbers. ”

    Linda, thanks for screwing up and losing the $50,000 grant that would have benefited senior transportation. Now you screw up the levy. Linda, are you intentionally screwing up? Nice, Linda. Nice!

  20. Re: “How about all the money for Moore’s lawyers?” OR the Trustees Lawyer?

    It’s not Moore’s fault that the Judge essentially agreed that there was a problem with the way things were done by the previous supervisor and then Trustees. More than one person sought a legal opinion but making it all seem to fall on one person’s shoulders does seem to be your intent.

    As to the recent case, the judge made it pretty clear about that “usurp” thing and so on. It didn’t have to be this way. The judge also essentially told people to get over the person stuff and stay in their own corner of job duties.

  21. Re: “his explaination of the fuel tax which was lost to the road district becuase a previous board failed to levy enough”

    Okay, a previous board failed to levy enough.

    Okay, so people, on a PREVIOUS board, made mistakes and were/are human?

    I guess Grafton wasn’t perfect before and isn’t perfect now.

    Do better next year.

    I wish you all the best.

  22. Nine people on here rip Linda Moore.

    The rest showed up at the annual Grafton Township meeting with torches and pitchforks, administering a beat down to the Trustees they just cannot get past.

    Cal’s picture of Rob LaPorta that night is photo of the year to me.

    I don’t live in that township, but the judge issued a decision some of you loonies cannot just get past.

    If Linda deserves to be voted out, let the voters do it.

    And I think it is worth bringing up the building again.

    Over and over again.

    That was a tangible savings.

    Now would you people get back on your medications and leave Cal time and room to cover other things.

    Res judicata, baby.

  23. Maybe you folks should come over to Avon Township (Round Lakes & Grayslake) and see how a professional Board of Trustees Meetings is run and how they can reduce the levy for two years standing.

    This year the Road & Bridge commission cut 41% of bloat.

  24. Paul//You and Aileen should do a stand up comedy act. You’re really funny! Such a hoot.

    LCTRUTH//I agree. Alot can be learned from other townships. Unfortunately we have a hard headed supervisor who will never think about listening to others. She thinks that it is Eutopia in Grafton. 🙁

  25. If you want to send Linda an invite, you better do it face to face or give her a phone call. As we learned from the last senior bus debacle, her email is very unreliable

  26. Hello “Jack”. Would you like to ride there together?

    You can reach me at the township by calling 847669 3328.

    Thanks!

  27. Linda:

    Did you double check the phone number that you posted? History shows you have a problem with numbers!

    1.) Linda, What is your goal and vision for Grafton Township, the community and it’s residents?

    2.) Linda, What do you want to accomplish in the next couple of years?

    3.) Linda, Do you intend on running for re-election?

    Thanks in advance!

  28. What a mess. As I’ve stated before, I think all of you — LaPorta, Zirk, Murphy, Moore, should step aside. The disfunction you’ve created is embarrasing.

  29. Snarky Caddy: What did I say was false?

    I don’t know Aileen, don’t care.

    Maybe what you said was funny, but my understanding that the peoply that were witch-slapping your deified trustees weren’t laughing either.

    Nor were the Gods and Goddesses of Grafton.

    Like I said, you can rant here, but the people of the Township here had their say, as did Judge Caldwell.

    Be snarky, be anonymous, but you’re still on the losing side.

    And I am safely ensconced in Algonquin Township, but wishing all townships were eliminated.

  30. Pauline: You bet your sweet arse I am on the losing end. As one of the countless taxpayer that have been sodomized by Moore for two years with two more years still to come, you bet your arse I am a loser in all of this. For troglodytes like and Dee (or is it Alan?) to break it down by plaintiff (Moore) and defendant (Trustees), is shortsided and narrowminded. Taxpayers are paying for both sides’ lawyers THROUGH THE SPHINCTER. So please don’t harp about winners or losers unless you are chummy with the plaintiff.We taxpayers have been sodomized once more.

  31. “I guess Grafton wasn’t perfect before and isn’t perfect now.”

    Aileen! How dare you turn on Linda like this!

    What next? Announcing that “Cadman” is not your spouse?

  32. Tommy, get some counseling for that anger management you need.

    How did you ever sit through such a meeting where your fellow citizens by the dozen slapped you silly in public like that.

    Poor baby.

    Sure you Graftonites are paying for both attorneys.

    Instead of being so petulant though, remember it is your Trustee Gods and Goddesses who paid Ancel Glink so much to overturn the will of the voters.

    Of course, you didn’t like the outcome, so you sit and snipe anonymously, you courageousnameless internet blogger you.

    Stay the heck in Grafton.

    Pauline, troglodyte…come on.

    I’ve seen pigeons in Chicago on my way to work every day dish out better than you.

    I’m on the outside of Grafton (be praised) and shaking my head at how bad the Grafton Goofs make this county look like a bunch of toothless hillbillies.

    You should be ashamed of both sides and if you would at least admit that, I would tip my hat to you.

    Nah, just be an internet tough guy.

  33. Paul//And exactly why are you posting so much about a township in which you don’t even live?? People in glass houses……

    Internet tough guy? Look in a mirror.

    Your words: Now would you people get back on your medications and leave Cal time and room to cover other things.

    Wanna take your own meds?

  34. Sassy Cassy: Perhaps, but I don’t hide behind a nomme de guerre to do it.

    Don’t hide anywhere, actually.

    And you just cannot concede that the Trustees have any accountability.

    Yep, I’ll stand by what I said.

  35. Linda,

    Why won’t you answer the three questions that were posted to you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.