Did Aaron Shepley Have a Conflict of Interest by Serving on Electoral Board?

Aaron Shepley

In a comment, under this article, the wife of Robert S. Miller, Dianne, wrote the following:

During the hearing Robert’s statement included the fact that Mayor Shepley’s wife works for the same law firm that represented [Council members] Hopkins, Brady and Ferguson and he said that Mayor Shepley should recuse himself, but didn’t request that he do so.

The look on Mayor Shepley’s face was like a deer in the headlights.


Did Aaron Shepley Have a Conflict of Interest by Serving on Electoral Board? — 3 Comments

  1. See my post on yesterday’s blog regarding this and his “Alabama Shakes” response.

    If that’s not a blatant conflict of interest then anything goes in the City of Crystal Lake.

    My opinion that this is just the tip of the iceberg and if The Mayor thinks this isn’t a conflict, what else has the City been involved with ?

    I’m surprised his eyes weren’t rolling around when confronted by Mr. Miller on this. He should have recused himself immediately but instead continued and ruled against Mr. Miller.

    City of Crystal Lake’s Standard Operating Procedure ….

    Try to sneak something by ,then when caught ….. Silence !

  2. Erik is correct. Quite correct.

    Aaron Shepley is unethical. He’s supposed to be an attorney. But he’s just like the slimy Michael Cohen.

  3. The law on this is very forgiving on conflicts of interest.

    The only reason someone has a legally recognized conflict from serving on an electoral board where their position would ordinarily require it, is if their economic interests are directly affected.

    For example, Bob Anderson was eventually able to force the Mchenry Township Board off from hearing the challenges to his petition for a referendum to abolish the township, but only because they got salaries or per diems as township officials that would be affected should the referendum succeed.

    The other reason would be if the board member was running for the same position in the same election. They can’t hear the objections to their prospective opponents.

    I recall that there was a bill, perhaps sponsored by Althoff, a year or so a ago that would have required these cases to be heard by an impartial board not composed of sitting members of the same political body, but I don’t know what happened with that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.