Algonquin Township Road Commissioner Bob Miller Buys Retirement Watch in Nunda Township

Reprinted with permission of Illinois Leaks:

Algonquin Township Road District – Retirement watch not a public purpose –

McHenry Co. (ECWd) –

How can tax money be spent by public officials?  It starts with our State Constitution.

With those two key points in mind, you have to identify the law that authorized the expenditure, unless the public body is a Home Rule entity and then the expenditure is by ordinance.

Algonquin Township is not Home Rule.

That means their spending must be only as authorized by law and within the confines of our State Constitution.

Which brings us to the key question people should ask with all spending by local government, in this case, let’s focus on gifts.

Where in the law does it authorize gifts to be purchased, for any reason? 

This would include birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas, and even retirements.

Where so many people go off the reservation is they focus on how they feel about the spending instead of its legality.

We can all come up with a justification for spending, but the key is ensuring that justification meets the legal requirement of being authorized.

I don’t know too many people that are against birthday parties, Christmas parties, or even giving a person a $200 watch after 39 years of service.

However, it appears there are a lot of people that think it’s proper to use tax levy money, taken from the people for a specific purpose, in this case, Road Maintenance, and use it for something other than what you told them when you taxed them.

There is no law permitting the purchase of gifts with taxpayer money.

It appears the legislature went the extra mile to make sure everyone knew the rules on gifts as it is part of the State Ethics laws, applicable to local government.

“Gift” means any gratuity, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other tangible or intangible item having monetary value including, but not limited to, cash, food and drink, and honoraria for speaking engagements related to or attributable to government employment or the official position of an employee, member, or officer. The value of a gift may be further defined by rules adopted by the appropriate ethics commission or by the Auditor General for the Auditor General and for employees of the office of the Auditor General.

Of special interest, the wording in the exceptions to the Gift Ban. 

(5 ILCS 430/10-15) Gift ban; exceptions. The restriction in Section 10-10 does not apply to the following:

(1) Opportunities, benefits, and services that are available on the same conditions as for the general public.

So does the general public, on the same conditions as a retiring employee, have the same opportunities, benefits, and services available to them?

Does the general public, on the same conditions get to eat from the trough at a Christmas party paid for with public funds?

Does the general public, on the same conditions, get a $200.00 taxpayer funded watch when they retire from their private employment?

The answer is simple, No.

There is no public purpose to spending money on gifts for retired employees.  If you want to give a gift, pull out your own wallet or purse and spend your own money!

We contend, Bob Miller’s purchase of a $200 Watch as a gift did not serve a public purpose.

Dazell & Co. receipt for a discounted watch.

No matter if it was for Retirement, Christmas, Birthday or any other reason. It benefited one person, the recipient!

Public funds are to be used only for public purpose!

Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link. 


Algonquin Township Road Commissioner Bob Miller Buys Retirement Watch in Nunda Township — 16 Comments

  1. Yet another reason for republikkklans to hear…tic, tock, tic, tock, tic, tock, tic, tock…

  2. I didnt realize Kirk was a lawyer, so I looked on the ARDC web site and he isnt listed, but I did notice that ARDC is responsible for prosecuting non lawyers who make general explanations of what a law says or intends.

    It is called the unauthorized practice of law and it is a criminal offense.

    I think Mr. Kirk has stepped over the line.

  3. LOL you are a Dork. now Youre playing lawyer.

    Any citizen watchdog can point this out.

    Mary McClellan learned this the hard way (that you don’t buy gifts with taxpayer money-that that is called CAMPAIGNING ON THE TAXPAYER’S DIME)

    This watch is a gift.

    Wonder how all those overtaxed residents in that township feel about giving a watch to someone who used to be the Hwy Commissioner of the township they’re trying to disolve BECAUSE of him?

  4. dork, I charge $10 per second, for reading moronic posts.

    You owe me $20.

  5. The simple answer is that this might fall within the public use exception, to reward and employee on their retirement.

    If they think it is so “clear” that it doesn’t why don’t they spend their own money, bring suit and lose.

    I guess Kirk stayed at a Holiday Inn, but still don’t quite make it, eh?

  6. Watching, what are you trying to say? You’re talking like a hillbilly. (and usually I can understand you? Please clarify if you see this.

  7. taxpayers screwed again!

    Won’t it ever stop?

    Where’s the State’s Attorney in all this?



    In league with the grifters?


    Mathematically challenged?

    Township flunkey?

    There has to be some rational explanation!

  8. I can’t understand how/why the Millers are not criminally liable for their misappropriations and embezzlement.

    If anyone can explain, please do so.

  9. Why didn’t the taxpayers provide the Millers with a mansion in Costa Rica, too (with Jim Kelly living in a guest house thereof)?

    What’s the difference?

    It’s all taxpayer money.

    On a township-wide plebiscite, I’m sure Miller would have been voted a new Yacht, a $500,000
    debit card and a permanent Sky Box for the Cubs (whenever he was around to diddle the grandkids and not at Disney World or another Caribbean cruise!

    Why ask the taxpayers or even put it on the ballot.

    The Millers and their pathetic supporters know best.

    Just shower them with pelf!

  10. Maybe the State’s Attorney is inebriated or suffering from a neurological disorder!

    Maybe he recognizes the Millers’ thefts as a kind of kleptomania which they are unable to control, and according to their attorney Kelly, ‘utterly blameless.’

  11. Cindy,
    You are righti! They are in league with the Illuminati who are slowly working to ensure you will never be able to have an iota of freedom again.

  12. Yea, my Uncle Cletus warned me about posting my homemade sausage recipe.

  13. Not? Now you are talking in nonsense rhymes again. Are you drifting in and out of some kind of consciousness?

  14. You know what happens when you assume!!

    Looks like he may have put it to the house account to get the discount (Discount clearly stated) and he paid it……part of only having the “facts” that you look for

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.