Steve Willson Wonders How Intent to Defraud Can Be Proven in IMRF Pension Situation

Under this story, local resident Steve Willson offers his opinion on the McHenry County Board’s pension problem:

It was a witch hunt, pure and simple, and a selective one at that, given that former board members and downstate County board members were not targeted.

There are two issues here:

  1. should the County Board members have pensions?
  2. did they do something wrong?

Certain parties have wrongly sought to conflate the two issues.

With regard to the first issue, I believe as a matter of policy that County Board members should NOT receive pensions.

The legislature should change the law and make this clear.

But, THAT issue is completely separate from the second issue.

The second issue is did the board members do something wrong or illegal by signing up for the pension.

Let’s look at the facts.

The County administration has OFFERED the pension to board members since 1998.

Understand that: the pension was not something demanded by board members or done under the table.

It was offered BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION.

A new member gets elected, he or she sits down with someone from HR, they give the new board member forms to fill out — federal tax forms, state income tax forms, and a form for the IMRF.

Gottemoller facing right on podium talking 10-5-15

Joe Gottemoller

No one — not from HR, not from the IMRF, ever said, in eighteen years, “you aren’t eligible”.

In fact, HR told the members they WERE eligible, and under the law it is HR’s responsibility to check.
I opposed Joe Gottemoller for election as Board Chair.

Anna May Miller

Anna May Miller

But if he’s getting a pension for that position, he didn’t do anything wrong.

I opposed Anna May Miller for the board.

But if she’s getting a pension for that position, she didn’t do anything wrong.

Illegal action requires intent.

It’s clear there was NEVER any intent to do anything wrong.

Quite the opposite:

the members relied in good faith on what they were told by the people who’s job it is to know, including the IMRF.

It’s time for the IMRF to call this thing off, too.

It’s time for a definitive conclusion to this witch hunt.


Comments

Steve Willson Wonders How Intent to Defraud Can Be Proven in IMRF Pension Situation — 39 Comments

  1. LOL
    So if it’s offered, you should take it?!
    Hey Steve-O, was Jack Franks offered a pension for being state Rep?
    Let it be known that Steve Wilson cannot support Steve Reick for State Rep Bc Reick won’t take a pension.
    According to Steve Wilson, if it’s available – take it!
    So Steve, by that logic, you are for welfare queens and free lunches! Glad to hear!

  2. Steve this is one time I would have to disagree with you. The board members are adults and should have enough common sense to make sure they meet the standards set up by IMRF and not just take the word of an HR employee. Furthermore they should keep decent records of the time they put in on the job just as they would to document something on a tax return. I realize it would be very easy to fudge off premise work hours but at least they would put on a good show. Ignorance of the law is not excuse they say.

  3. Human Resources led them to believe that a pension was part of a package.

    Steven Wilson is right. there was no intent to commit a crime and this is nothing but a witch hunt by the “REGIMERS” which is the ‘OLD ESTABLISHMENT,” that is losing their power and influence with each and every election in McHenry County.

    As far as pensions go it is not the responsibility of an employee to know the law, it is the responsibility of the employer which in turn notifies Human Resources. The average person is not trained in employment law.

    So, take your witch hunt somewhere else.

    We are expecting the tax payers to get out in droves at the next election, so more of the Old Establishment, is diminished and even dissolved.

  4. Hopefully Democrat State Representative Jack Franks is making enough enemies they will unite to defeat him in the November election for 63rd State Representative.

    Which is the best thing McHenry County residents can do if they want to chip away at Michael Madigan’s power in the Illinois General Assembly.

  5. Imrf conducts audits on a regular basis to verify accurate payments and eligibility.

    In politics no one wants to do anything retroactively.

    If ineligible members made contributions they can get refunds.

    The county would also get refunds.

    Going forward members should either be willing to prove eligibility or not sign up for imrf.

    The county administration works for the board members not the other way around.

  6. Yes Mark, the tax payers need to realize that Jack Franks is a hindrance to better government and they need to be at the polls in large numbers if they want to defeat Franks.

  7. So ignorance is the excuse and I it doesn’t matter what the law says unless your a County Board Member.

    They certified the position as eligible so HR is required to offer it to them.

    They have the option of opting out.

    If the HR department gives you tax forms to complete is it their responsibility to make sure you claimed the right exemptions?

    Is that’s what the point is here?

  8. Show the documentation that they worked the required hours to be eligible for the benefits or they shouldn’t be getting benefits.

    I don’t know if any of this is criminal, but that doesn’t mean they should be getting benefits.

    All other conversation distract from the original claim, which was that these board members don’t work anywhere near 1000 hours.

    Maybe punch in and punch out like other people do at their jobs and then we could settle this.

  9. The County Trustees have to affix their signature to an affidavit CERTIFYING that they met the requirements to be eligible for IMRF pension benefits.

    Here is the first section of the affidavit they signed:
    “I hereby certify that:

    A) I understand that an elected position must normally require performance of duty for at least 1,000 hours in a twelve-month period in order to be eligible dor IMRF participation. IMRF PARTICIPATION IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC BENEFIT OF HOLDING ELECTED OFFICE.” (emphasis added)

    I don’t see where there is any ambiguity or room to claim ignorance of the law in that statement or in the rest of the affidavit signed by them.

    In fact, the form goes out of its way to dumb-down the 1,000 hour requirement by breaking it down into what the requirement would be on a weekly basis:

    “C) I understand that 1,000 hours of work annually is an average of 20 hours of work per week for 50 weeks per year.”

    This is so that those that lack any financial acumen and/or are mathematically challenged, which, after the Valley Hi debacle, means most of the board, can at least take their shoes and socks off and use all of their fingers and toes each week to count up to the 20 hours required in order to be eligible.

    Lastly, if there was any doubt about the intent to defraud, IMRF may have that information shortly as Trustees submit some type of hourly work record in support of their eligibilty claim.

    You can’t blame HR if you’re making up a log for the past year trying to find an extra 800 to 900 hours (as most of them need) and submit it to IMRF.

    If they submit a bogus log to IMRF, then that leaves no doubt under the last section of the affidavit:

    “E) I understand that any person who knowingly makes any false statement or falsifies or permits to be falsified any record of the Illinois Municpal Retirement Fund in an attempt to defraud IMRF is guilty of a Class 3 felony (40 ILCS 5/1-135).”

  10. What do you mean HR made them believe it was part of their package?

    THIS ISN’T A JOB!!!!!

    For goodness sake- the board voted to increase the hours to 1,000 to justify their pay increase.

    They knew how many hours they were putting in doing their job.

    They reported their hours..

    Stop pretending like they do not know they are not spending 20 hours a week.

    Think about the sustainability of that.

    It amazes me that the conversation on this blog is about why the issue is who raised the awareness of the violation versus the violation.

    Small or not- it is tax dollars-

    Eliminate the Pension.

    Eliminate the taxpayer subsidy for Healthcare.

    Eliminate the mileage reimbursement.

    This is not a matter of misunderstanding- this is a matter of never believing they would be held accountable.

  11. One could submit a FOIA request to IMRF for all copies of the “Certification by Elected Official of Hours Required” for all counties in Illinois over say the last 5 years.

    Since IMRF has the forms, it’s easy for IMRF to conduct an investigation into all counties.

    Is there some reason to believe McHenry County Board members work less than Board Members in other counties whom also receive the pension benefit.

  12. Lots of valid opinions, but sometimes not much recognition that the problem is complicated on how we got to this point.

    Steve make a valid argument on the process in the past, but it’s time we move on to a solution that most likely will not come from the board, new dudes or the old dudes as it appears both sides partially want nothing to change.

    Solution has to come from us, probably by petition, or constant attendance to related board meetings.

    Political pressure with a valid plan works, mostly anyway.

    Petition that would lead to a vote by us on whether the JOB deserves benefits or not, mileage reimbursement is a different animal IMO.

    Time to do it, isn’t it or are we just going to keep the lip service going?

    Got a good lawyer willing to type something up with low to no loop holes, go for it.

    I’ll be glad to help get the signatures.

  13. IMO Jack Franks has initiated this witch hunt with one goal in mind:

    Get the Board to remove the pension benefit so he can add that to his campaign platform when he runs for County Board Chairman in 2020.

    Do not forget, we have the position of County Board Chairman because of a Jack Franks initiative.

    Any current County Board member who promotes the elimination of this benefit at this time is working directly or indirectly for Jack Franks (imo).

    Why is Jack not attempting to educate the voters on the need for a Constitutional amendment to remove the public sector pension guarantee?

  14. Moderate:

    You are conflating two issues, which is exactly what I said was invalid.

    I believe we should do away with these types of pensions.

    If you do, too, then we agree.

    When you say,

    “They didn’t need to accept a pension”

    , you are correct. But that’s different than the implication of criminal intent.

    When you say,

    “It was up to the members to determine if they were eligible”,

    I agree.

    And they did.

    When HR tells you you’re eligible and it’s been going on for 18 years with no objections from anyone — including the IMRF — how much greater obligation do you have to investigate?

    Putting false words in my mouth and making false personal attacks is neither logic nor evidence.

    It’s just an attempt to divert attention from the two real issues.

    I made clear I didn’t think they should take pensions.

    To imply otherwise is simply a lie.

  15. Steve?

    Did they work the 1,000?

    No? That’s fraud.

    Fraud is a crime where I’m from, Steve.

    If you agree to work 1,000 AND get a pension for it, but don’t work the requisite 1,000, that’s fraud Steve.

    You can’t blame HR for not doing the work you agreed to do!

    But we do agree on one thing: CUT the size

    If the board. CUT their pensions.

    And CAP their pay at less than 24,000 a year with an adjusted 1.25% COLA per year.

    ANY county board member that isn’t for this is part of the problem

  16. People, it’s clear that Jack Franks wants to run for County Board Chair to up his income to get more in pension.

    He has only a few years to go before collecting his pension ala the taxpayers.

    The IMRF guy even admitted that this was a charade he was being used as a political prop or pawn for Franks’ benefit.

  17. But if you read the Certification it doesn’t even say the person signing it worked any hours.

    The form was written by a two year old or a person with an equivalent mind.

  18. You people are delusion.

    Jack is going after a much bigger seat that County Chairman. And who cares.

    If he runs- beat him by pointing to his time aligned with Madigan.

    DO you truly have so little faith in your party that you don’t believe you can beat him?

    Anyone watching this board could raise a list 10 feet long of irresponsible votes and actions.

    Despite the AAA bond rating.

    The Republican party controlled board voted for numerous pay increases, increases to the mileage, and against eliminating the mileage

    This was raised as a distraction in the first place and you bit the hook, spent time and resources to stop the referendum for a county executive that NEVER had the votes.

    @Steve- the McHenry County board RAISED the requirement to 1,000 hours to justify their pay increase. Not every board has the same requirement.

    It was 600 prior to them raising it.

    The members of the county board sign an affidavit testifying they spend 20 hours per week on county board work- THERE IS NO GREY HERE.

    you can not tell there is any wiggle room in knowing you work 20 additional hours a week on the county board- not going to Party events, not campaigning, not chatting – WORKING on county board issues.

    20 hours a week- always.

    NO WAY.

    Two of this board are not even here in the state half the time.

    most can only claim 1/10th that amount between meetings and committee responsibilities.

  19. Illegal action requires intent?

    So the “i didn’t know it was illegal” defense would work in court?

    Schmuck.

  20. I have to admit, my favorite comment on this whole issue was from the Northwest Herald.

    “One’s deep thoughts on county matters… don’t count for actual work”.

    Really?

    I thought that was the most important thing they could do — think about the issues.

    I’m reminded of something that happened to my brother in his first job out college over 40 years ago.

    He worked as an electrical engineer in the research department at Motorola.

    His job was to invent things.

    One day his boss came by, saw him sitting at his desk, just staring into space.

    “Willson”, he said, “what are you doing?”

    My brother replied,

    “Thinking.”

    His boss said — God’s truth —

    “Well knock it off and get back to work.”

  21. There was a comment above that Franks’ goal was to remove the pension benefit.

    As a practical matter, I’d say mission accomplished at this point.

    No County Trustee in their right mind will (or can) now sign the IMRF affidavit certifying 1,000 hours worked.

    The workload just doesn’t exist for 80+ hours/month.

    And the County, as the employer, does not have the reporting policies/procedures/mechanisms in place for acquiring and retaining the records for the hours worked by the Trustees, as required by law.

  22. Scenerio: Board member is elected.

    Board member has some idea of what Board members do and signs on for IMRF (not necessarily a pension because you are not vested unless you pay in for ten years) realizing that he / she is agreeing to the 1,000 hour per year work load.

    Terms are for two or four years.

    Board member expects to be assigned to a minimum of three committees and maybe as many as six or seven.

    Board member is a known conservative or an unknown and the Board Chair person only assigns him / her to three committees.

    Along comes Local 150 and Jack Franks.

    Either or both are upset because the Board has approved the Rauner agenda and voted against Prevailing Wage.

    Someone takes a look at the number of hours Board members spend in the twice monthly Board meetings, C.O.W. meetings and committee meetings to which they are assigned.

    The data is sent to the IMRF Director and Jack Franks asks for a special prosecutor because no one works 1,000 hours based on the incomplete data.

    Based on the chart provided, the Board Chair person only ‘worked’ for 56 hours.

    This could raise the question, why did Jack Franks start the initiative to have a County Board Chairman elected at large when he / she only ‘works’ 56 hours a year?

    I digress.

    Back to the theoretical Board member.

    He / she spends about 100 hours in meetings as reported by Local 150.

    However, he / she is ‘serving’ his / her constituents by sitting in on other committee meetings and at times participating but that time is not recorded or included in the Local 150 report.

    He / she attends ZBA hearings relative to zoning changes in his / her district – not recorded.

    He / she reads the entire ‘packet’ for each board / committee meeting and does background work to verify that what Staff is proposing will serve his / her constituents – not recorded.

    The Board member receives a complaint from a constituent about noise generated by a horse race track and ends up spending an afternoon observing the activity.

    This is followed up by spending many hours researching what if anything can be done for those affected.

    Next he / she is called about noise from a four-wheel drive track.

    This is followed by a one year project spent researching ordinances in other counties and formulating a plan to have an ordinance passed in McHenry to stop the activity.

    After being engaged in many other ‘projects’ relative to ‘noise’, highways, roundabouts, county welfare benefits, Nursing home taxes, grants, homelessness etc. etc. he / she decides too much time is being consumed away from his / her family by these activities and decides after spending six or eight years as a County Board member he / she has done their share of public service and does not run for office again.

    IMRF deductions made from his / her pay check are refunded and the County gets back their matching portion.

    So, before more people go off further ‘half-cocked’ demanding an end to IMRF participation, demanding a Special Prosecutor (that we pay for), demanding a smaller board etc. think about this:

    Do you like the fact that the Constitution guarantees public sector pensions and as posted elsewhere, yet again the Court rules against a change?

    If not, convince your State Legislature to put a referendum on the ballot this fall or next year.

    Do you like what is happening with property taxes for schools to support EVERYTHING the Teacher unions want because they continually hold children hostage and the school boards are populated with those who side with the union?

    If you do not, remember school board elected officials get paid nothing.

    The State Legislature continues to pursue a path of spending more than what we the taxpayers can afford.

    The County has frozen their property tax levy.

    The County has balanced the budget.

    The County is reducing its staff to offset pay increases for those who are left.

    Before you decide that the compensation package of IMRF participation and health benefits plus a salary is too high, remember School Boards are paid NOTHING.

    How is that working out for you?

    The County accounts for 9.7 % of your property taxes while school districts account for 67.16 %.

  23. Several people have stressed the “1,000 hour” issue, and how board members should have known what was required. I wondered what the exact rules were regarding this issue and what board members should have known. So I decided I’d so some research. I spent several hours on the IMRF site. Here’s what I learned.

    First of all, I went through the entire “Manual for Authorized Agents” trying to find information about what action County boards are supposed to take to make their members eligible for pensions.

    I didn’t find any directions.

    So while there may be rules that the staff of the County should find about what procedures to follow so that the required items get put on the agenda annually, or whenever required – I found NOTHING after going through the entire manual.

    But I kept searching.

    Eventually I found “General Memo 549”. It includes directions for staff handling the paperwork for IMRF members. It says in part:

    “County officials participating in the revised Elected County Official (ECO) Plan (officials who began ECO participation on or after January 26, 2000) must renew their election to participate when they begin a new term of office. These officials would complete IMRF Form 6.21B, “Election by Elected County Official to Participate in IMRF Elected County Official Plan.”

    That led me to form 6.21 “Election to Participate for Qualifying Position”, which is the form the board members are given when they are told they can choose to participate in the pension program or not.

    Neither form 6.21 nor its directions says ANYTHING about hours.

    So if I were a new board member, and I were given this form – FROM THE IMRF – I would have no reason to suspect there was a requirement that I work any number of hours or that I should document my hours.

    Now, form 6.93, “Certification by Elected Official of Hours Required – 1,000” speaks to hours. It says elected officials need to certify they work 1,000 per year.

    But this is NOT the form that board members are given each year to fill out. In fact, I asked a couple of board members if they had ever seen this form until this month. The answer was no.

    Interestingly, when I searched for this form on the IMRF site, 658 documents came up. After looking through the first 50 hits and not finding the form, I gave up. So it’s probably out there, if you know where to look. But, literally, even knowing it was there (thank you, Mark), I couldn’t find it on the IMRF site. If you read the form, by the way, it says the member must attest that they “understand that an elected position must normally require performance of duty for at least 1,000 hours in a twelve-month period”. It doesn’t say, “and you’d better document this after the fact, too!”

    I also found Special Memo 320 is directed to “Authorized Agents of Counties”, meaning it is up to staff to know this memo exists. It says, “Elected officials have the option of participating in IMRF if the elected official’s position qualifies for IMRF coverage (i.e., the position held requires the elected official to work a number of hours per year that meets or exceeds the IMRF hourly standard, which is either 600 or 1,000 hours as chosen by the employer’s governing body)…. Effective January 1, 2011, IMRF will assign a benefit “tier” to an elected county official when he or she is enrolled in IMRF.”

    So here we have direction from the IMRF to County Staff – not to board members – telling staff what the options are.

    I kept searching and eventually I found Form 6.64 “A Resolution Relating to Participation by Elected Officials in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund”. It says Boards can choose either 600 hours or 1,000 hours as the requirement to participate in the IMRF. But I found no directions for use of this form either. Again, directions may be SOMEWHERE. But after several hours on the IMRF site, I couldn’t come up with anything saying if this resolution was required or how often.

    Now, understand what I’m saying. There is probably a statute that speaks to what is required. I didn’t keep searching that far. But for those who say, “Board members should have known and not relied on staff (!)”, I spent HOURS on the IMRF site and could find nothing that said how often this form should be passed: once, every year, every month. And I knew to look for that specific form, something that I would never have looked for absent all the news about the pensions.

    Now, I know some county board members who, I have no doubt, actually put in 1,000 hours a year for the job, and I don’t mean on campaigning, I mean on reviewing documents in preparation for meetings and thinking about the issues (although as I noted earlier, the Northwest Herald does not regard thinking about the issues as important work). But after the fact, they’re going to be hard-pressed to document this since they were never asked to keep a log of their hours.

    By the way, I want to thank Sen. Althoff for spending some time with me today on this issue. She is very knowledgeable and was able to give me some good direction on researching this issue.

  24. Mr. Willson- a brilliant example of mindless brown-nosing ass-kissing you’ve just posted here.

    I am a high school graduate, and I have been aware of the 1,000 hour requirement for a decade.

    Your childishly theatrical criticism of the “complexity” of the paperwork is something I would expect from a drunk high school dropout crying into a beer at a dive bar, wailing at the “complexity of IRS Form 1040A.

    Grow the fuck up, you disgusting manchild.

    Signing an affidavit. It is that simple.

    If the board members claim that “they did not understand”, they are liars, and should be removed from office, or suffer from a diminished mental capacity which makes them unfit for public service- and should be removed from public service.

    Looking forward to some more waving of “complex” paperwork in the air.

  25. John Lovaas: Are you familiar with the term

    “argument ad hominem”?

  26. John’s comment is yet more evidence of Franks and Bissett-Yensen hitting a home run with Andrew, Jeff and Allan piling on.

  27. John Lovaas:

    The only thing missing was,

    “Jane, you ignorant slut.”

  28. Personally, I think Steve Wilson is right.

    There is nothing to be concerned about in regards to the IMRF issue.

    We don’t need anymore witch hunts in McHenry County.

    Let’s focus on the real issues where there needs to be change.

    In addition to the meetings, the Board members put in many hours outside meetings and many go way beyond what is required of them.

    Further, many are dedicated hardworking and they are not just sitting on their hands accepting a check.

    That is a ridiculous assumption.

    Put a sock in it John Lovaas, you are the one that sounds like a man child.

    Grow Up!

  29. Ignoring his vicious and baseless personal attacks on me, what was John Lovaas’ main argument?

    Board members should have known about the 1,000 hour rule.

    What was his “evidence”?

    His claim that HE has known about the rule for ten years.

    It’s a shame he didn’t speak up earlier.

    The problem would have been fixed ten years ago.

    But the key point here is that both of us are speaking to exactly the same issue:

    intent.

    This whole argument boils down to intent.

    And John’s reference to the IRS illustrates the issue very well.

    In fact, I’m going to use John’s own analogy to disprove his claim and to prove my point.

    How many of you have ever made a mistake on your taxes?

    Did the IRS prosecute you for fraud?

    No.

    Why not?

    Because of a lack of intent.

    IRS regulations are complicated.

    No one can know all of them.

    Yet, legally, we’re required to know all of them — at least all of them that apply to us.

    And if you make a mistake, the IRS sends you a correction and you pay your taxes.

    (Usually, though, the IRS doesn’t wait eighteen years to let you know you’ve made a mistake – unlike the IMRF.)

    But the point remains:

    if you make a mistake on your taxes, you don’t expect the IRS to prosecute you for fraud.

    You don’t expect your neighbors to call you a tax cheat, and a liar, or that you’re incompetent.

    Why?

    Because those claims require intent.

    So John claims that he knew about the “1,000 hour” rule ten years ago, and so every board member should have known, too.

    For the last ten years he never complained in public or to the board that they were doing something wrong.

    But he claims he knew ten years ago.

    And the pensions have been offered since 1998, so apparently for at least six years John was ignorant as well.

    But John asserts, as have several other people on this blog, that the “1,000 hour rule” was common knowledge and the board members should have known.

    I, on the other hand, do not assert my points without evidence or claim that I knew things ten years ago and just never spoke up.

    I argue that intent should be judged by whether the board members acted in reasonable good faith.

    And rather than mere assertion, I offer EVIDENCE in the forms the board members were given by the staff, forms provided by the IMRF.

    We know for a FACT that the forms given to the board members by the staff, forms provided by the IMRF, say NOTHING about hours.

    And I went beyond that, scouring the IMRF site for information – something I’ll wager no one else on this blog can claim, especially those calling for the board members’ heads, and far more than could reasonably be expected of board members.

    And what I found was that if there is information out there about that rule, the IMRF sure doesn’t make it easy to find. John disparages my efforts in the vilest terms, but I do not regard insults as refutation.

    My argument stands that even substantial effort far beyond what might have been expected was unlikely to turn up evidence of a problem.

    There are other facts, too, that help to prove my point about intent.

    We know for a FACT that the IMRF said NOTHING for eighteen years to anyone in McHenry County – yet John says the issue was common knowledge.

    We know for a FACT that the people who brought the issue to the attention of the IMRF apparently didn’t discover the problem until this year – yet John says the issue was common knowledge.

    And we know for a FACT that 34 other downstate counties have also been making the same “mistake” for years, without complaint from the IMRF – yet John says the issue was common knowledge.

    John claims the board members are either liars or incompetent.

    But to use John’s own analogy, I ask you this:

    If you hired an accountant to do your taxes, like the board hires staff to handle issues such as benefits, and the accountant gave your forms to sign, forms provided by the IRS, like the forms given to board members by the staff, forms from the IMRF, and you looked the forms over and didn’t see anything obviously wrong – like the fact that the forms don’t mention anything about hours – and you and many other people had signed them year after year without a problem, would you sign those papers?

    And if it turned out there WAS a mistake on your taxes, would you say YOU were a tax cheat and that you broke the law and should be prosecuted?

    Would you say your actions proved that you were incompetent or a liar?

    Or would you claim you the facts show you took reasonable precautions to make sure you did the right thing?

    Not that you didn’t break the tax laws, but that you did so despite reasonable efforts to avoid that exact thing.

    So if you want to argue that board members shouldn’t get pensions, I’ll agree.

    And if it turns out many of them were not eligible, then we’ll all agree that should be fixed.

    But to claim every board member who accepted a pension acted in bad faith and knew or should have known they were “cheating” is a very strong charge and requires very strong evidence.

    I will leave it to the readers of this blog to decide who provided the stronger evidence:

    John or me.

  30. I don’t think John is responsible for holding our elected officials accountable.

    Glad to see Jack Franks led the way in ensuring that out county board members are accountable.

  31. John Lovaas, doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. In fact, he wouldn’t know how to interpret employment law if it hit him in the face. And, either would Jack Franks.

    In my opinion, Jack Franks is one of the worst candidates ever elected in McHenry County and he is nothing but trouble at this stage of the game.

    Further he is an ally to Mr Madigan Shenanigans AKA Mike Madigan in Springfield.

    Franks and Madigan should be leading the way by telling the boys from Springfield to get back there and do their jobs. Instead, they take a vacation on the tax payers dime.

    YOU WIMPS!

    Franks and Madigan should both resign, so Rauner can continue to lead the way for recovery in Illinois.

    Reforming government in McHenry County and in Illinois, means that Jack Franks is voted out of office come November.

  32. Re: “Glad to see Jack Franks led the way in ensuring that out county board members are accountable”

    Huh?

    Obviously ‘Moderate’ did not listen to the meeting on line are attend when the IMRF dude came in front of the Board (or maybe did not absorb what was said?).

    Based on the comment by the IMRF dude Jack Franks jumped on the Local 150 band wagon recently.

    The initial audit was done last year.

    Again, I ask, why is Jack not working on the problems in Springfield?

    The County passes balanced budgets and pays their bills!

    Jack Franks, quit grandstanding and do your job!!!

  33. Do we the people, need to do an audit on Frank’s bank account to verify that he does in fact have money to travel to Springfield and do his Job?

    Probably!

    Now Jack, please enlighten the people of McHenry County and the State of Illinois, as to what your plans are, as far as when you plan to travel to Springfield and do the job you were elected for?

    Jack, quit riding that tricycle of yours and get in the car and get going!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.