Judge Caldwell’s Feb 24th Grafton Township Suit Concluding Comments – Part 2 – Forensicon and Elgin Lock & Key Bills Not Approved

"Retaining Client" is the way this contract (Wednesday identified as a "draft" by Forensicon President Lee Neubecker) characterizes Grafton Township law firm Ancel Glink. Click to enlarge any image. (The full, final version of the contract was posted at Neubecker's request on March 9, 2011. A link to it is at the bottom of this article. The final contract's first page identifies Grafton Township as the "Retaining Client.")

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.


Judge Caldwell’s Feb 24th Grafton Township Suit Concluding Comments – Part 2 – Forensicon and Elgin Lock & Key Bills Not Approved — 7 Comments

  1. Grafton Township is a collection of the most dysfunctional people that anyone can find. Corruption galore!

  2. Jim, I guess you want trustees to pay illegal bills.

    If Illilnois wasn’t so corrupt, there wouldn’t have to be court fights when someone stands up and refuses to pay expenses that a judge declares illegal.

    Isn’t can’t-be-trursted trustee LaPorta a C.P.A.? Cal was kind not to mention his “Certified Public Abuser” credentials as a result of the judge’s ruling. I guess accountants know how to get illegal bills paid for by the taxpayers.

    You can see the “thorough” documentation that LaPorta and the trustees and their lawyers gave the judge.

    Not everyone wants Grafton run like Cicero or Chicago. Not everyone is willing out in the suburbs to vote for Rahm-it-down-your-throat politics.

  3. It looks like TWO trustees signed the contract.

    The Board consists of ONE supervisor and FOUR trustees.

    I don’t recall voting for TWO trustees to have the authority

    to solicit services and define the details of what should be done,

    to sign the contract,

    and to award a rather large contract that per what’s here seems to be
    open-ended re cost,

    to a specific entity without seeking out competition for the job to be done.

    Was that in the small print on the ballot or did the TWO trustees just do what the heck they wanted?

  4. Aileen, do you support the action of removing the township financial records TO HER HOME and then ALLOWING the hiring of Forensicon? She could has told EVERYONE where the records were and that she had removed them. NOPE, she did nothing. She said nothing, resulting in the hiring of Forensicon.

  5. I have a question for Cal, Aileen, and Linda… as I remember it, part of the reason Forensicon was brought in was because the senior bus schedule AS WELL AS the financial files had been removed from the township computers. Was the bus schedule on Linda’s magic thumb drive? If not, wouldn’t whoever removed that schedule be responsible for destruction of township records?

Leave a Reply

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