More McHenry County Blog

STATE OF ILLINOIS. ))
SS.
COUNTY OF McHENRY )
IN THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LINDA I. MOORE, in her official )
capacity as GRAFTON TOWNSHIP )
SUPERVISOR, ))
Plaintiff, ))
-vs- ) 10 CH 684
)
GRAFTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES, )
BETTY ZIRK, GERALD McMAHON, ROB )
LaPORTA, BARBARA MURPHY, in their )
official capacity, and KERI-LYN )
KRAFTHEFER of ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, )
BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C., in )
her official Capacity as acting )
Grafton Township Attorney, and GRAFTON)
TOWNSHIP, ))
Defendants. )
ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED REPORT OF
PROCEEDINGS had in the hearing of the above-entitled
cause before the Honorable MICHAEL T. CALDWELL,
Judge of said court, on the 24th day of February,
2011, in the McHenry County Government Center,
Woodstock, Illinois.

APPEARANCES:
JOHN M. NELSON LAW OFFICES, by:
MR. JOHN M. NELSON,
appeared for the Plaintiff;
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI &
KRAFTHEFER, P.C., by:
MR. THOMAS G. DiCIANNI,
appeared for the Defendants.

I N D E X
BETTY ZIRK
DX by Mr. DiCianni, p 6
CX by Mr. Nelson, p 30
RDX by Mr. DiCianni, p 48
X by The Court, p 56
LINDA I. MOORE
DX by Mr. DiCianni, p 60
CX by Mr. Nelson, p 67
RDX by Mr. DiCianni, p 72
Decision, p 91

THE COURT: Moore vs. Grafton Township.
MR. DiCIANNI: Your Honor, there are several
points in plaintiff's response which we need to
present evidence.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DiCIANNI: Having just seen it today, I'm
asking the court if we can have the case set down
for evidentiary hearing early next week, Tuesday or
Wednesday.
THE COURT: Not a chance.
DiCIANNI: Judge, I was --
THE COURT: Unless the jury trial call
completely falls apart. Quite frankly, given the
number one case on my call, it's so hotly contested
that I don't think it's going to settle.
MR. DiCIANNI: All right. Well, then let's do
it now.
THE COURT: I'm ready.
MR. NELSON: Okay.
THE COURT: All right.
It's your motion in DiCianni.
MR. DiCIANNI: Yes, I would call Betty Zirk
first.
THE COURT: All right.
Ms. Zirk, raise your right hand and be
sworn, please.
(Witness sworn.)
THE COURT: Would you take the chair with the
microphone, please.
MR. NELSON: Judge, we would -- depending on the
court's feeling, this is not a party, the woman in
the jury box. That's the wife of one of the
trustees.
THE COURT: Fine.
MR. NELSON: Whatever the court please, but
we --
THE COURT: I don't particularly -- unless I
have a jury trial, I don't particularly care who
sits in the jury box.
MR. NELSON: All right.
THE COURT: Mr. DiCianni, you may proceed.
MR. DiCIANNI: Thank you.

BETTY ZIRK,
called as a witness on behalf of the defendants,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. Ma'am, would you state your name and spell
your last name --
MR. DiCIANNI: Is there a record here, your
Honor?
THE COURT: We're on the electronic recording
system.
MR. DiCIANNI: Fine.
THE COURT: You had a court reporter for the
trial, is that right?
MR. DiCIANNI: We did. We did. We're willing
to waive it for this proceeding and we can proceed
on the electronic.
THE COURT: We will need a clarifying order that
today's proceeding -- the official record will be
the ERS record, okay.
MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: When we're done we will take care of
that.
MR. DiCIANNI: All right.
Q. Ma'am, state your name and spell your name
for the record.
A. My name is Betty Zirk. I'm a trustee for
the Grafton Township.
Q. All right and --
THE COURT: How do you spell your last name,
ma'am?
THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
THE COURT: How do you spell your last name?
THE WITNESS: Z as in zebra-i-r-k.
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. And how long have you been on the Grafton
Township board?
THE COURT: I've been on the board -- I want to
say this will be my eleventh year.
Q. And have you attended meetings of the
Grafton Township board over the last two years?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Have you missed any?
A. No.
Q. Let me call your attention. You were
present during the trial we had earlier this year
regarding issues involving the supervisor, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me call attention to what we've marked
as Exhibit B?
MR. DiCIANNI: And this is B1 attached to our
motion.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. Let me ask you take a look at that document
and have you identify it?
A. Yes. This is a bill from Attorney Kelly
and it relates to the final court case with the
building project. I think he came before -- or I
know he came before his honor Judge Caldwell to ask
to close the case and this is part of that bill.
Q. Now, that's a bill -- was that bill
presented to the board at a board meeting for audit
to be reviewed by the board?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. And let me show you what's marked as --
A. And since then there has been an additional
fee for the length of time we've had that bill.
Q. Let me show you what's marked as Exhibit A.
Can you identify what is Exhibit A again.
This is Exhibit A to the --
MR. NELSON: Judge, I'd object to any voluntary
responses by the witness.
THE COURT: Voluntary responses by who?
MR. NELSON: The witness. In other words,
volunteering (indiscernible).
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. NELSON: There was no question pending here.
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. Let me ask you to take a look at Exhibit A.
A. All right.
Q. Please identify that.
A. Exhibit A is -- is minutes from our meeting
on August 12th in 2010.
Q. And was the Kelly bill presented at that
meeting for review by the board?
A. I don't have the agenda in front of us, but
I'll look here for it.
Q. Here, let me -- do you need something to
refresh your memory?
A. Yes, please.
Q. All right. Let me show you page 2 of that
document you just identified and ask you to take a
look under item number 3.
Does that refresh your memory as to whether
that bill was presented at that board meeting?
A. Yes, it's written very clearly on here that
we approved the payment of the bills, plus these
bills that were listed.
Q. All right, what other bills were presented
and approved at that board meeting?
A. All right, the bill for Lamp for $4,318.75.
Q. Now, let me stop you there.
What was the bill for Lamp?
A. Lamp was the bill from the building
project. This was for the finals from the architect
and --
Q. The architect for what?
A. For the building project. It was the
architect's main drawing of the actual building
that --
Q. All right. We all know what that was about
from the prior --
A. Right.
Q. -- litigation.
Let -- just briefly, tell us what that
building project was?
A. Well, the building project was to build a
building with offices, larger offices, and a meeting
room and a garage for our vehicles and --
Q. And there was litigation over that,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And eventually that project was
abandoned --
A. Yes.
Q. -- after the litigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that bill incurred prior to that
litigation?
A. No.
Q. Was that bill -- was the architect work
done prior to the litigation?
A. Yes.
MR. NELSON: Objection.
THE WITNESS: The architect work was done.
THE COURT: There is an objection.
What is the objection, Mr. Nelson?
MR. NELSON: Judge, leading. The -- and also
foundation. I would want something from the witness
that would show that she would know when the work
was completed.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well --
THE COURT: We're not there yet. As to leading,
objection's overruled.
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. Actually, let me show you what's marked as
Exhibit F.
A. Right.
Q. Can you please identify that group of
documents?
A. Yes, this is the actual bill from Lamp,
Incorporated, and it's dated May 6th; and in there
he's stating:
We are submitting two from Gillespie Design
Services for the architectural services for the new
township building that was put on hold. These
architectural services were performed before the
court injunction.
Q. Was that a document that was presented to
the Grafton Township board --
A. Yes.
Q. -- to be reviewed and approved?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that bill approved?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And this was for -- for what
exactly, what was that architect's work for?
A. Well, it was actually the design for the
building.
Q. Okay. And that building -- that design was
done prior to the challenge -- the litigation
challenging whether it should go forward?
A. Yes.
Q. Regarding the Kelly bill that we just
discussed, was there a discussion at any board
meetings? You testified it was approved, correct?
A. Right.
Q. Was there any discussion at any board
meetings with the supervisor, Linda Moore, about
payment of that bill?
A. No, we -- we just said that we were going
to honor his bill because it dealt with the final
finishing of the building project.
Q. Well, Linda Moore has alleged that she's
refused to pay that bill because she is -- she
requested at a meeting that the board conduct a --
transfer monies to the budget line item for
attorneys fees and the trustees refused to do that
and that's the reason she did not pay the bill.
Did that discussion take place?
THE COURT: Which bill are we talking about?
Kelly?
MR. DiCIANNI: Yes.
THE COURT: Exhibit B1?
MR. DiCIANNI: Yes.
Q. Did that discussion ever take place at a
Grafton Township board meeting?
A. Yes, we -- she had said we didn't have
enough money in the legal fees, but we felt that
this should not have been against legal feels but
against the building project. We had a capital line
item and that cost should have went against that
instead of legal because it dealt with the building
project so-to-speak.
Q. Well, did the board refuse to transfer
money into the attorneys fee line item when the
supervisor requested it?
A. At that time, yes.
Q. And how about at the last meeting.
A. No not at this last meeting.
Q. What was requested at the last meeting?
A. At the last meeting we transferred 60,000
into that line item.
Q. Into the attorneys fee line item?
A. Yes.
Q. And did that -- was part of that to cover
the Kelly bill?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: What's the line item?
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. What is the line item on the budget?
A. Oh, I don't have that in front of me.
Q. Is it the attorneys fee line item?
A. Yes, it's an attorney line item, legal
fees.
Q. All right. What is the next bill listed?
A. The next one is Elgin Key & Lock.
Q. What was that for?
A. And that was for changing locks at the time
our supervisor was locking this one office that we
felt should be open as the reception area. Also, we
had problems with the clerk's office. Her office
was not contained. Other people had keys to her
door and files and things were interrupted there.
So we felt we had to have the clerk have her own key
and a special lock just for that door.
Q. So the board approved that expense, too,
A. Yes.
Q. -- for locks in the township hall?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
THE COURT: When?
MR. DiCIANNI: Pardon me?
THE COURT: When.
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. What's the date on that?
A. This is April -- August 12, 2010.
Q. What is the next item?
A. The next one is for Pam Fender for $312.06.
Q. And what was that for?
A. That was for our annual town meeting. Pam
went out and we had to rent a special sound system.
We had the annual meeting out at the high school.
They had -- their system was involved for other uses
and they didn't have a sound system for us to -- for
our meeting and so we had to go rent one.
Q. And that was for the annual town meeting --
A. Annual town --
Q. (Indiscernible)?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me show you what's marked as Exhibit B2
again --
A. All right.
Q. -- on the motion.
Have you seen that item before?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you identify this?
A. It's a bill presented by Pam Fender and
it's for several items on it. It all dealt with our
annual meeting. One was for stamps and poster and
just some office supplies, the sound system.
Q. What does the sound system do?
A. Well, she had to go out and rent a sound
system so we have it for the annual meeting out at
the high school.
Q. What were -- what was the office supplies?
A. The office supplies were things that dealt
with the annual meeting. I mean we had to have --
we had to have some extra paperwork and things like
this. I mean, actually, at this time she was
assisting our clerk in assembling this?
Q. And did the clerk ordinarily put together
whatever is necessary for the town meeting?
A. Yes. I mean the clerk is -- is the only
one that's supposed to be handling the town meeting.
Q. But Pam Fender was assisting?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was the board -- was it your
understanding as a board member that these were outof-
pocket expenses --
A. Yes.
Q. -- (indiscernible) Fender incurred?
A. Yes.
Q. We heard during the -- what's the next line
item? I'm sorry, I took your document.
What's the next item?
A. The next item is Forensicon for $19,880.31.
Q. All right. Now, we heard during the course
of the trial the purpose of the Forensicon --
A. Right.
Q. -- study?
A. Right.
Q. Was that approved by the board?
A. Yes.
Q. How much was approved by the board at the
August 12, 2010, meeting?
A. $19,880.31.
Q. All right. What is the next item?
A. Next item is Leading IT Solutions for $150.
Q. What is that for?
A. That was for a gentleman to come in that --
from IT solutions to check our server. At that time
our server had been stripped of all its financial
and information for the township and we asked him to
come in and check our server. He was the one that
told us that our server was stripped of all the
information.
Q. So the $150 bill was to study that
computer?
A. Yes.
Q. What's the next line item?
A. MLS Mailing, Incorporated.
Q. What was that for?
A. That was -- at the time there was a lot of
concern within our township and we asked him to work
up a -- a postcard, so-to-speak, and made it out to
our -- our members or our citizens of Grafton
Township to -- and that was for the annual town
meeting.
Q. And what did the postcard --
A. It said that we were -- excuse me.
Q. What did you instruct MLS Mailing the
purpose of the notice was?
A. It was to make people aware that we did
have a -- that we were having an annual town meeting
and these people should -- should come and -- and --
and be aware that -- of all the information
regarding the township.
Q. Did it go to all the residents of the
township?
A. No, he didn't. That was several different
areas and I can't spell out which zones he picked.
Q. And why -- was he instructed to pick only
certain zones?
A. I -- I -- I believe so, but that was not my
decision, but it was -- or I don't know. They
thought it should make (indiscernible) people aware
of this meeting.
Q. Was there some political purpose for this
mailing?
A. Not that I -- I'm aware of. It's just to
make people aware. I am mean it was mainly for a
section in Del Webb, was all new people that lived
in Grafton Township and had no idea that they had
this authority or awareness.
Q. So it was a notification to people, as far
as you understood it, who had not been previously
notified about the existence of an annual town
meeting?
MR. NELSON: I'd object to the leading nature of
the question (indiscernible).
THE COURT: Sustained.
And this is the bill to who?
MR. DiCIANNI: MLS Mailing, Inc., notifications
to township residents.
Q. Did this notice contain any message about
how they should vote on any particular --
A. No.
Q. -- issue?
A. It was just a notice saying that there was
an annual town meeting and it would be -- that
people could come in and make -- and voice opinions.
I mean there was...
Q. What's the next item?
A. The next item is -- is Point of Video for
$510. Now, this was a person who -- that was asked
to come in to video and record the annual meeting,
and that bill hasn't been paid and we haven't got
that information. Our clerk is waiting to get this
information to finish the minutes for our annual
meeting.
Q. All right. Which would be approved at your
next annual meeting?
A. Right.
Q. What's Q & A Reporting?
A. Q & A Reporting, we had a court reporter at
one of our meetings that our attorney said that we
should have there and she was there reporting and
this is her bill.
Q. This was for the board meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. How about the next item?
A. Trend graphics. I'm trying to figure out
what that was. I don't recall what that
(indiscernible) is. Is there a bill with it? I
didn't look through it.
Q. Let me show you what's marked as Exhibit
B7.
I'll ask you to take a look at this.
A. All right. Oh, all right.
Q. Does that refresh your memory --
A. Yes.
Q. -- as to what that bill was?
A. This bill regards -- at the time we had
several resolutions that were to be given to the
people to check out and verify and this was the
printing and -- and the packets, the cost of all
these packets for this meeting.
Q. So these were passed out at the last annual
meeting?
A. Yes, as people came in, they received one.
Q. All right. Was there any particular
political message or any direction on how to vote on
any issue?
A. No, no direction. It was just giving out
information as to what these resolutions were
regarding.
Q. It was a meeting packet?
A. Right.
Q. Have each -- you've shown that -- or you've
testified that all of these bills were approved at
the last board meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And have they been presented to the
supervisor since the court's order of December 10,
2010, regarding for payment?
A. Yes. At that meeting we -- we said to pay
them.
Q. And since December 10, 2010, has the
supervisor been directed to pay those bills?
A. Yes, we just did it again at our last
meeting in February here. As far as I know, I don't
think they've been paid.
Q. Now, has the supervisor provided you with
any access to the financial records that were --
that you and others testified about at the
preliminary injunction hearing?
A. Not as yet. She bought a new laptop and
said that we could come into the office and -- and
read it. But I've been busy and haven't had the
opportunity to go in and do it. There's two of our
trustees that work and would never be able to go in
there to -- to read it. They're asking for -- to
let them read it at home from -- through the
Internet system.
Q. Now, we heard during the preliminary
hearing injunction that prior to Ms. Moore removing
those, those were maintained on the township server?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if they've been replaced --
A. No.
Q. -- or put back on the township server?
A. No, not as I know of. I don't think she
has replaced it. She told me she wasn't going to
replace it.
Q. When did she tell that you that?
A. Oh, golly, a couple months ago when I asked
her.
Q. Has the board received or asked for and
received an estimate for a tech company to create
remote read only access for its financial?
A. Well, this would --
MR. NELSON: Judge, if I might, I would object
to re-litigating --
THE COURT: What?
MR. NELSON: I would object to relitigating this
issue. The way I understand it, we believe that all
of this evidence had been presented that the court
ruled, and as we pointed out in our reply, we
believe that we have complied with the court order.
Not only that, we indicated before the court on
(indiscernible) prior occurrences (indiscernible)
court or counsel and I would object to counsel
having a second bite at the apple in terms of
arguing that remote access should -- through the
Internet should be allowed. We didn't -- and we may
have erred, Judge, but we did not read the court's
decision ordering that.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. I'll
allow the testimony.
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. Let me ask you to take a look at Exhibit D.
Again, this is Exhibit D to the motion.
A. Right.
Q. Let me ask you to take a look at that and
identify it for the record.
A. Right. This is a statement made by Leading
IT Solutions. He would have the capabilities of
reinstating our server -- the information back on
the server and make it available for remote access.
Q. And that would be read only?
THE COURT: On the server.
THE WITNESS: Read only, yes.
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. On the server.
MR. DiCIANNI: Excuse my delays, your Honor.
I'm trying to respond to the issues raised in the
response.
Q. What's the status of the township audit to
your knowledge?
A. I know that we approved, again, to have the
audit done in our February meeting and we -- I've
been talking -- I have talked with Mr. Brown since
and he said that he sent a registered letter to the
township office and -- with a return receipt and he
got the receipt back signed by one of the employees
of the township and -- but -- and he has tried since
then to contact the supervisor to arrange doing the
audit and he has not heard a reply from her.
Q. Has the supervisor ever presented to the
township board a list of township -- of potential
auditors to perform the audit?
A. No. She said she had a list but was never
presented.
Q. How did Brown & Company get involved?
A. Brown & Company did an audit once before.
He's -- and we felt he did -- I felt he did a great
job for the township. He also is a little more
reasonable. He also is very well acquainted with
township government and knows the rules and
regulations for townships and I feel that he would
be very well qualified and I know he's doing the
audit for Algonquin Township.
Q. And didn't you contact Mr. Brown
(indiscernible)?
A. I have, yes.
Q. Okay. When was that?
A. Oh, this was back in -- in February of last
year.
Q. But just recently?
A. Recently? I just talked to him two weeks
ago.
Q. And did you enter into a contract with him
to perform the audit?
A. He -- yes.
Q. When was that entered into, approximately?
A. Oh, I don't have that paper in front of me.
Q. Within the last month or so?
A. Yes, but I can give you the exact date if
you want me to go and get the paper.
Q. Was it since December 10, 2010?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Yes, okay, all right.
Now, what audit are we talking about?
A. We're talking about the audit from March of
2010.
Q. So we're talking about the audit for --
A. Last year.
Q. -- the last fiscal year?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: March of 2010 to the end of February
2011.
MR. DiCIANNI: No, (indiscernible).
Q. What fiscal year is Mr. Brown going to be
auditing?
A. He's going to audit the fiscal year that
started in April 2010 and ending in March 2010.
Q. Ending in 2010?
A. Yes.
Q. There is no work that's begun yet on the
audit for the current fiscal year?
A. No, no.
Q. Is that last year audit overdue?
A. Oh, yes. I -- I'm surprised. We're behind
notifying our county and our state.
MR. DiCIANNI: I have nothing further of this
witness. I would call Linda Moore next.
THE COURT: Wait a minute.
MR. DiCIANNI: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Cross examine.
MR. NELSON: Thank you very much, your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. NELSON:

Q. Mrs. Zirk, you testified just now that you
don't ever recall any other auditors being proposed
at any board meeting prior to the hiring of Mr.
Brown just this last February, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you were present, I believe you
testified, at every meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were present in -- at the October,
November and December meetings, is that so, of 2010?
A. Of 2010. I believe I was there.
Q. And do you remember that I was in the
audience? Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And your testimony, as I understand it is
that you don't recall Supervisor Moore addressing
the trustees and saying that Mr. Brown would not do
the audit as long as there is pending litigation.
You don't remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes you do or no you don't?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. You don't remember that, though, that
Supervisor Moore suggested there were three other
accountants, including the accountant who did the
audit for April of 2008 through March of 2009, who
were ready, willing and able to do the audit?
A. She said she had other -- a list of
auditors that could do it, but we weren't given that
list. I don't recall that she mentioned anyone.
Q. Okay. Do you recall the trustees
discussing the possibility of using other auditors
and rejecting that suggestion out of hand?
A. Well, we had already approved of Mr. Brown
and -- and so we felt there wasn't any need to -- to
consider any other auditors.
Q. Now, in -- you attended the January 2011
township meeting --
A. Yes.
Q. -- did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember that I attended that
meeting --
A. Yes.
Q. -- as well?
In that meeting, did not the board members
have a copy of the contract for the audit from Mr.
Brown?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was the first time that that
contract was ever exhibited to the board then, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And in point of fact, all four board
members signed that contract?
A. Yes.
Q. But they didn't give that contract to the
supervisor, did they?
A. She had a copy of it. He mailed her one
and she was given a copy because she -- she did not
sign that contract. I have a copy of it if you need
to look at it.
Q. She didn't sign that contract at that
meeting because she wasn't given a contract that you
and the other trustees signed, right?
A. Well, I thought she was. I mean we -- we
approved it and I -- I'm sure she was given the
opportunity and she declined.
Q. Well, Mrs. Zirk, who gave her the contract
then? You didn't give her the contract, did you?
A. No, Mr. LaPorta had it.
Q. Are you testifying under oath that you saw
Mr. LaPorta give Mrs. Moore -- you're not testifying
under oath, are you, that you saw him give it to
Ms. Moore because you have it?
A. Well I -- I -- we all -- I mean he handed
it all to -- we were signing it down the line to the
trustees and -- and it was -- I'm sure it was given
to her.
Q. But you didn't see it given to her?
A. I didn't see that, no.
Q. And when you say you were signing it down
the line with the trustees, you all four trustees
sit at the same table --
A. Yes.
Q. -- right in a line --
A. Yes.
Q. -- is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there is another table and that's
where Supervisor Moore sits by herself, right?
A. Well, she -- she had already denied when we
made the motion to hire Brown.
Q. She voted against it?
A. She denied the approval.
Q. She voted against approving the contract?
A. Right.
Q. And that's -- that's her right as a member
of the board --
A. Right.
Q. -- is it not.
The same as it would be for you to vote no?
A. Right.
Q. But my question, ma'am, was you four sit in
a row at one table and that table is adjacent to a
table, a separate table, and Supervisor Moore sits
at that table as the head of the organization by
herself, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And then over at the other table that's
where the assessor and the --
A. Road commissioner.
Q. -- road commissioner --
A. And the clerk.
Q. -- and the clerk and sometimes the road
commissioner's lawyer sits there?
A. Right.
Q. And that's where Attorney Krafthefer used
to sit?
A. Right.
Q. Now, Mrs. Zirk, you received a copy of the
judge's injunctive order, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read the part where the board can
enter into, essentially, major contract --
A. Yes.
Q. -- but the day to day contracts are up to
the --
A. Right.
Q. -- supervisor?
A. Right, right.
MR. DiCIANNI: Objection, that mischaracterized.
THE COURT: Overruled. I know what it said. I
wrote it.
MR. NELSON:
Q. Now, Ms. Zirk, you remember recently
submitting a bill for bingo expenses --
A. Yes.
Q. -- to the supervisor?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was for $7 for coffee?
A. For coffee for our senior bingo. I was
just being a helpful hand. I found it on sale and
we were short and we needed it.
Q. Okay.
A. And she says she's not going to reimburse
me for it so I guess I'm just donating it.
Q. Now, you said you were too busy to go in
and look at any --
A. Yes.
Q. -- of the financial information --
A. Yes.
Q. -- on the laptop computer.
Now, it used to be that you would go in and
request to see financial information on a regular
basis?
A. Right.
Q. And what you would receive were printed
copies of the financial affairs of the township?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. And I believe you testified until
the (indiscernible) that you have your own computer
and you can work a computer?
A. Right.
Q. And -- but the reason that you testified
that you haven't gone in to look at the financials
that are available is you've been too busy?
A. Right.
Q. But you're not working now?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So you could come in during business
hours if you have the time --
A. Right.
Q. -- and look at these financial reports,
true?
A. Right.
Q. And you -- you are also aware that the
supervisor has said at the January 2011 meeting that
anybody could come in and look at the computer that
has the financial information on it by appointment
after hours, true?
A. I didn't hear the appointments after hours.
I wasn't aware of that.
Q. Okay. But you wouldn't need that?
A. Pardon me?
Q. You wouldn't need an appointment after
hours?
A. Right, I wouldn't.
Q. Mr. LaPorta might?
A. Right.
Q. Because he works (indiscernible)?
A. He works all the time.
Q. Okay. And I believe some of the other
trustees work, but I don't know what their hours
are.
A. Yes.
Q. And you don't either, right?
A. Pardon me?
Q. You don't either. You don't know what
their hours of work are?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Okay. Now, your testimony, as I understand
it, is that the notification that Pam Fender
arranged and had postcards printed up and paid for
to, I assume, a mailing company, did not go to all
the residents of the township?
A. Right.
Q. It went primarily to the Del Webb area?
A. Right.
Q. And as I understand it, the resolutions
presented at the annual meeting by the --
A. Attorney Krafthefer.
Q. -- had to do with the idea that those
resolutions would confirm authorization for the new
town hall, right?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. And it was the hope, was it not,
that maybe the newer residents in the Del Webb
development would be more in favor of that?
A. Not -- no, that's not the reason this
mailing was sent to them. It was because they
were -- many of that area was very recent and they
were all new to the community and just wanted people
to be aware.
Q. Now, Ms. Zirk, how long have you been on
the Grafton Township board?
A. Eleven years.
Q. And you've been a resident in the community
for?
A. I've been there all my life, 84 years.
Q. And in terms of the town of Grafton
Township sending out these kinds of notices, they've
never done that before, have they?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And --
A. But there is a big controversy and we
thought it should be wise for everyone to be aware
and -- and -- and --
Q. Well, if you're going to send out notice,
why wouldn't notice be sent out to every resident so
that they have an equal --
A. Because the cost of --
Q. -- chance of notice?
A. The cost is so exorbitant. I mean the
postage alone, if you tried to send a mailing to
every registered voter in Grafton Township, it's
like 25,000 parcels and it's a big cost. It cost us
almost $7,000 in postage. It's very costly. We
were trying to do newsletters and we had set aside
$7,000 to send out a newsletter, but we never did
send out one, and that's this current year.
Q. Okay. Now, the board voted after the
meeting to pay these bills, is that right?
A. At the meeting, yes.
Q. After the annual meeting, that's when the
vote was taken?
A. Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Q. Okay. There was no money directed by the
board for expenses of the annual meeting before the
annual meeting?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, you testified about Jim Kelly's
bill?
A. Yes.
Q. And at this last meeting in February --
A. Right.
Q. -- of 2011 there were two agendas put
forward, true?
A. Two.
Q. One was the agenda put forward by the
trustees and the other was the agenda put forward by
the supervisor --
A. Right.
Q. -- true?
And as has been the practice, albeit
limited, since the judge's order, the board of
trustees voted four to one to adopt the trustee's
agenda and reject the supervisor's agenda, true?
A. True.
Q. I mean so your understanding of that is
then that the supervisor's agenda is off the table?
A. Right.
Q. Now, in the trustees' agenda there was no
mention of the transfer of any monies from any
account to the attorneys fees account, true?
A. True.
Q. Okay. Now, the board did vote to do that?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. But there was no notice to the
public that that was going to happen?
A. Well --
Q. Isn't that true?
A. That's true.
Q. Okay, thank you.
A. The --
THE COURT: There is no question pending.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
MR. NELSON:
Q. By the way, in the postcards that were sent
to the Del Webb residents there was an invitation
enclosed and attached to an open house, wasn't
there?
A. Yes.
MR. NELSON: Okay.
May I review the exhibits and approach the
witness?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NELSON: Thank you.
If I may just have a minute, Judge.
Thank you.
MR. NELSON: May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NELSON:
Q. Let me show you what's been previously
marked as Exhibit D, and I believe Mr. DiCianni
asked you about this.
A. Right.
Q. Now, that appears to be a series of
documents that have a Leading IT Solutions heading
on them?
THE COURT: Is this B or D? Boy or dog?
MR. NELSON: D, dog.
THE WITNESS: Exhibit D.
MR. NELSON:
Q. Do you see those documents? Can you take a
minute and look through them for me, please.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, directing your attention to the
last page.
That appears to be an e-mail notice to Pam
Fender, right?
A. Right.
Q. And it refers to a contract that apparently
Pam Fender was negotiating with Leading IT
Solutions?
A. For the trustees, yes.
THE COURT: Just answer that question yes or no.
THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
THE COURT: Answer that question yes or no.
THE WITNESS: Oh. I'm sorry.
Say this again.
MR. NELSON:
Q. That refers to a contract Pam Fender was
negotiating with IT Solutions, true?
A. Yes.
Q. I do not see -- backing up, there appears
to be a sheet heading and two pages of contractual
language.
Do you see those?
A. Yes.
Q. There is no -- do you know what a signature
page is, Ms. Zirk?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Have you ever seen it on a contract, at the
end there is a place for people to sign --
A. Right.
Q. -- and (indiscernible)?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. There is no signature page on that
document, true?
A. True.
Q. Now, did Pam Fender sign that contract? Do
you know?
A. No.
Q. No, you don't know?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. You don't know if the contract was ever
signed?
A. No.
Q. Now, there appears to be in your claim with
the other defendant you're asking that IT's bill of
$150 be paid, true?
A. True.
Q. And that is -- that's the bill they
submitted for their services?
A. Right.
Q. And it remains unpaid. That's the only
bill?
A. Right.
Q. Now, on this exhibit, let me show you, I
believe, the fourth page.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. That shows a bill for over 3,600 and
some dollars --
A. Right.
Q. -- does it not?
MR. DiCIANNI: I'm sorry, what's that number?
MR. NELSON: 3,600 and some.
Q. That bill was never submitted, was it?
A. No.
Q. And certainly that bill wasn't paid?
A. No.
MR. NELSON: Judge, if I might review this with
my client. I don't know that we got that on our
(indiscernible).
If I may approach, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NELSON:
Q. Ms. Zirk, let me show you an exhibit that
has been marked as B as in boy, 3?
A. Right.
Q. And that is a bill from Forensicon, is it
not?
A. True.
Q. Now, it is true, is it not, that you and
Mr. LaPorta signed the invoice or the contract for
their services?
A. True.
Q. And do you know if the lawyers from Ancel
Glink who were originally asked to sign the contract
ever signed it? Do you know?
MR. DiCIANNI: Objection to the -- that's not in
evidence, attorneys (indiscernible).
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NELSON:
Q. Which means you may answer.
THE COURT: (Indiscernible) answer.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. NELSON:
Q. No, you do not know?
A. I do not know. I mean I know that Mr.
LaPorta and I did sign the contract.
Q. Okay. Now, after you signed the contract
the board did take some action to authorize
Forensicon to spend up to $10,000 for services, is
that true?
A. That was the initial cost. They said it
could be more. As you can see, it has ended up
more.
Q. All right. My question is the board,
though, authorized up to $10,000 for payment of
Forensicon's bill?
A. True.
Q. And it was only after the $19,000 bill was
submitted that the board said let's go ahead and pay
it?
A. True.
Q. Now --
MR. NELSON: Judge, I have no further questions.
MR. DiCIANNI: I'm sorry, did you say no further
questions.
MR. NELSON: Yes.
MR. DiCIANNI: May I (indiscernible).
THE COURT: You may.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DiCIANNI:

Q. Ms. Zirk, regarding the audit, you
 testified that the board members approved the hiring
of Brown & Company to do the audit.
Ms. Moore voted against it?
A. True.
Q. That was her right?
A. True.
Q. But nevertheless, the contract was approved
at the meeting?
A. True.
Q. And Ms. Moore was there?
A. True.
Q. And it's your understanding Ms. Moore had a
copy of the contract --
A. True.
Q. -- from Brown?
But certainly Ms. Moore being there heard
or was in a position where she could see and hear
that the contract was approved?
A. Yes.
Q. So she had a right to --
A. Yes.
Q. -- vote against it?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't deny that.
A. Yes.
Q. She would not, though, in your
understanding, have a right to veto it by not
executing it?
A. Right.
Q. Regarding the town meeting last year,
counsel asked you about resolutions that were
contained in the packet that -- I can't recall the
name of it, that were put together (indiscernible)?
A. Right.
Q. And there were -- there was a resolution in
favor of the new town hall?
A. True.
Q. And there was a resolution in that packet
that was voted against -- that was to deny --
A. Yes.
Q. -- the new town hall?
A. Yes.
Q. There were the alternatives in that packet?
A. Right.
Q. And ultimately the electors voted against
it?
A. Right.
Q. And how did you vote (indiscernible)?
A. I voted for it.
Q. All right and some of the board members
voted against it?
A. Right.
Q. Regarding the Kelly bill, counsel mentioned
to you that there was nothing on the board members'
agenda showing a transfer of money between line
items to the attorneys fee line item at the board
meeting?
A. True.
Q. Okay. Nevertheless, the board voted to
make a transfer?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. Because as we approve bills, if we're over
budget, this is the time to adjust line items and
this is the reason I made that motion, is to
transfer money into that account to take care of
these bills. We had several other items on the --
on our financial statement that we were over and we
should have adjusted those also.
Q. So the action item on the agenda is the
payment of the bill?
A. Right.
Q. Whether that requires a line item transfer,
you didn't consider that -- or did you consider that
to be something that needed to be a specific action
item on the agenda?
A. Well I felt it -- being we were approving
these legal bills, we had to adjust the line item.
Q. That was part and parcel of the approval of
the bill?
A. The approval of the bills.
Q. And, nevertheless, that line item was
trans-- that money was transferred by vote of the
board?
A. Right.
Q. So at the time the board directed Ms. Moore
to pay the Kelly bill, the money had been properly,
as far as the board was concerned, placed in the
line item (indiscernible)?
A. Right.
Q. There was enough money in the line item to
pay the bill?
A. Right, not only pay -- well --
Q. Now, you've testified about what your
ability and other board members' ability to review
financial records?
A. Right.
Q. And Ms. Moore has offered to you the
ability that you can set up an appointment with her
and she will sit there in the office with you while
you look through the records, correct?
A. Right.
Q. On a laptop?
A. Right. A new laptop was purchased
specifically for that, which she had -- she bought
on a debit card we -- the bill was approved only
because it was already done.
Q. It was already expended?
A. It was already done.
Q. The Leading IT Solutions document, that's
D4 in the documents --
A. Right.
Q. -- is that a proposal?
A. I -- I believe probably it was to help us
get the server back. I mean, to get all the
information back on the server.
Q. Let me show you what I'm referring to. Let
me show you Exhibit D?
A. Right.
Q. Take a look at that document and tell me if
that refreshes your memory as to what the purpose of
that document was, at least from your perspective.
A. This document is from Leading IT Solutions
to restore the information back on the server and it
would amount to $3,656 and odd cents.
Q. And is there also a proposal for remote
access ability?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this is not the bill that -- you're
not saying that this is a bill that Ms. Moore should
have paid and hasn't?
A. No, we -- we didn't sign that contract. It
was --
Q. This is a proposal?
A. Proposal.
Q. Now, what she's offered to you that you can
set up these appointments, that would require her to
be there when you review the record?
A. Right.
MR. NELSON: Judge, I'd object to the leading
and suggestive nature of the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DiCIANNI:
Q. What did you understand that she's
offering?
A. Well, I -- you can't go in and just look at
the records, I mean, you have to get the memory
stick from her in order to even get on the computer
and she has that memory stick.
Q. Now, were you at the -- when was the
December township board meeting?
A. It's always the second Thursday of the
month.
Q. So that would have been --
A. I don't have the calendar with me.
Q. Well, let me just refresh your memory.
Let me rephrase the question.
When was the first township meeting in
January?
A. The second Thursday of the month.
Q. And when was the township meeting in
February?
A. The second Thursday. This is standard.
It's the second Thursday of every month.
Q. And in each of those meetings was Ms. Moore
directed to pay the bills that were approved at the
August 12, 2010, meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And those bills -- we've been using that
day but have those bills been approved on agendas
for approval at other meetings as well?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. In fact, do they appear on the agenda at
every meeting?
A. Yes.
MR. DiCIANNI: I have nothing further of this
witness.
THE COURT: On January 11, 2011, Brown presented
a contract to the board?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Who negotiated that contract?
THE WITNESS: Can I look at my paper? I have a
paper that we did sign with him and it has --
THE COURT: Who's we?
THE WITNESS: The trustees at this meeting.
THE COURT: Which meeting? January 11th or
earlier?
THE WITNESS: The January meeting, I believe.
THE COURT: How did this contract come to be at
the January 11th meeting?
THE WITNESS: Because we -- we said we needed to
get this audit.
THE COURT: How did it get there? Who
negotiated it?
THE WITNESS: Mr. LaPorta did. He talked to Mr.
Brown to present a bill or present a proposal to do
the audit.
THE COURT: You may have a seat. Sit down.
THE WITNESS: Am I --
THE COURT: No, you're still there.
THE WITNESS: (Indiscernible). We didn't do it
in the February one. It was done in January -- or
was it February. Have you got a date? May I go get
my paper and I can clarify that date?
THE COURT: Sure, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it was January if you
want to look at it.
THE COURT: No.
THE WITNESS: That's a copy. I'm sorry. The
brown is the original.
THE COURT: What is 10109 Vine Street in
Huntley?
THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
THE COURT: What address is that?
THE WITNESS: This is the Grafton Township
office.
THE COURT: Why wasn't this presented to Linda
Moore for signature?
THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
THE COURT: Why wasn't this presented to Linda
Moore for her signature?
THE WITNESS: I thought it had been. She denied
using Brown, but I thought -- Mr. LaPorta was
handling it and I thought he had passed it onto her.
And she re-- I was under the impression she refused
to sign it.
THE COURT: I don't blame her. The trustees of
the township were going behind her back hiring
people to do -- to do work and then expecting her to
go along with it.
The ordinary, usual routine for public
bodies in the hiring of these types of people is to
request proposals from a wide variety and have them
returned to the meeting so they can be studied and
approved and someone can be selected, not for Mr.
LaPorta to go out and pretend he's the township
supervisor and hire an accountant.
What's Keri Krafthefer doing at these
meetings.
THE WITNESS: (Indiscernible).
THE COURT: What is Keri Krafthefer doing at
these meetings?
MR. DiCIANNI: She's not there.
THE COURT: The minutes clearly show that she
was.
MR. DiCIANNI: Which minutes?
THE COURT: The ones that were attached to your
motion.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, that's August. That was
before your order.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NELSON: Judge, for the record, she was
there December 9th. That's the last meeting she
attended.
MR. DiCIANNI: She hasn't been there since.
MR. NELSON: And she hasn't been there since.
We would stipulate to that.
MR. DiCIANNI: She would have the right to
attend.
THE COURT: She has a right to attend. I don't
want her giving legal advice.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, Mr. Nelson's been giving
legal advice.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Nelson is the attorney for
the supervisor. I assume we will have that fight
down the road as to whether or not there is a
township attorney appointed by Ms. Moore, but for
the time being.
All right, do you have any other witnesses
you want to call?
MR. DiCIANNI: Ms. Moore.
THE COURT: Okay, step back in court.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Raise your right hand.
(Witness sworn.)

LINDA I. MOORE,
called as a witness on behalf of the defendants,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DiCIANNI:

Q. Ms. Moore, let me show you have what was
marked as Exhibit F.
Can you identify that document?
A. It's got a heading of Lamp, Incorporated.
Q. Did you receive it?
A. Um, back in May. Uh, I have to look at it
a minute.
Q. Take your time.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. And you read it?
A. At the time, yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And it involves a bill from Lamp,
Inc., correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you have not paid that bill, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You also have not paid the bills for
Matuszewich, Kelly & McKeever?
A. Correct.
Q. For 1,886.101,886.10?
A. Correct.
Q. You did not pay the bill for Elgin Key &
Lock for 380.74?
A. Correct.
Q. You've paid $10,000 of the Forensicon bill
but not the remaining 9,880.31, correct?
A. No.
Q. Have you paid any of the Forensicon bill?
A. No.
Q. All right. You have not paid the Leading
IT Solutions bill?
A. Correct.
Q. You have not paid the MLS Mailing, Inc.,
bill?
A. Correct.
Q. You haven't paid the Point of Video bill?
A. Correct.
Q. You haven't paid the Q & A Reporting bill?
A. Correct.
Q. You haven't paid the Trend Graphics bill?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, you have not restored the documents,
the financial documents, the QuickBooks documents,
and any other supporting documents that go along
with it to the township server, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You have not looked into any ability to
provide read only access on the township server to
those records, correct?
A. Incorrect.
Q. What have you done in that connection?
A. Several months ago I was on the phone with
someone from QuickBooks and I asked them if that
would be something that was possible and they told
me it would not be possible.
MR. DiCIANNI: I'll move to strike the hearsay.
Q. You've had a conversation with somebody at
QuickBooks?
A. Correct.
Q. You have not talked to anybody -- you have
not gotten any proposal or received -- sent out any
RFTs regarding any tech companies that come in and
examine that possibility, correct?
A. Could you clarify what you mean by that
possibility.
Q. Restoring the records to the township
server?
A. Correct.
Q. And you have not sought any -- issued any
RFTs or sought any proposals regarding providing any
type of remote access to those documents to the
trustees, correct?
A. Um, not in the last -- not since December
10th, correct.
Q. And what you have offered is to set up
appointments with them when they can come in and you
would plug in this finger drive into the laptop and
then they can look at the documents at that point,
correct?
A. That is not true.
Q. You have not offered that to them?
A. Could I just say what I did offer because
I'm getting confused.
Q. What did you offer them?
A. Okay. We have a laptop available for the
trustees in the conference room to come in and look
at anytime during business hours; and if that is not
convenient for them, I will make an appointment with
them to come in after office hours and have them
look at that in the conference room.
Q. And at that point you'll plug in a finger
drive into this --
A. No.
Q. -- laptop and --
A. That's not how it works.
Q. How does it work?
A. It updates over the network from the
computer every time we work on there on the
QuickBooks. We don't always do QuickBooks every
day.
Q. So you're saying that what you do on the
computer networks into this -- into this laptop and
it updates it periodically as it's (indiscernible)?
A. When we use QuickBooks, it updates the
laptop.
Q. And what you offered to them is that they
would have to set up an appointment with you if it's
after hours in order for them to look at the
documents?
A. I'll be glad to come in whenever they'd
like me to.
Q. But you have not examined any type of
remote access for that?
A. No.
Q. How many times have you been contacted by
Mr. Brown for the audit?
A. He left one message on the answering
machine after hours.
Q. And you have not set up an appointment with
him?
A. No.
Q. You did not submit any list of auditors or
somebody to do the audit to the board for
performance of the audit?
A. I discussed it at a board meeting and they
would not hear of anyone else.
Q. Did you submit any names?
A. I suggested a few names and there was no
interest.
Q. What board meeting was this?
A. I have proposals.
Q. What board meeting did you submit names?
A. I can't remember what meeting exactly.
Q. Who did you submit?
A. Who did I submit?
Q. Yes.
A. I'd have to pull those out. It's been a
couple months since I pulled those proposals out and
looked at them.
Q. Did you submit a -- did you issue a request
for proposals or auditors to submit to you and the
board proposals to do the audit?
A. For proposals, I asked them to put together
a proposal and submit it to me for me to prepare to
submit to the board.
Q. A request for proposals? You have
submitted a request or issued a request for
proposals?
A. I call them and asked them to propose what
it would cost to do the audit.
Q. Did you issue a request for proposal?
A. In writing?
Q. Yeah.
A. Um, it wasn't necessary.
Q. You have never done that?
A. I did it verbally.
Q. You've never submitted to the board the
idea of requesting proposals from various auditors
to be submitted?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That's -- when did you do that?
A. I'm sorry, I don't remember which meeting
exactly.
MR. DiCIANNI: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Nelson, anything by way of
clarification?
MR. NELSON: Just a couple of questions, your
Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. NELSON:

Q. In your -- when Mr. DiCianni asked you
about making an offer to the trustees in terms of
the review of the financial records, your -- let me
ask you this.
Have you ever mentioned, let alone insist,
that you would need to be present when they reviewed
the record?
A. No, I have not.
Q. And what is your understanding of -- have
any of the trustees come in to examine the financial
records on this particular computer?
A. No.
Q. If they did come in, what would be the
procedure?
A. I would give them the trustees' password
and they would go in the conference room and look at
it as much as they'd like and I would return to what
I was doing in the office.
Q. Now, the -- with respect to the sending out
written request for proposals, why is the reason
that you did not do that for auditors?
A. I just did it over the phone. I said, you
know, could you give me a price to do it, and they
said, okay, send us your previous audit, we'll look
it over. They may have had a few questions, I
answered them and then they sent me the proposal.
It seemed like a simple matter.
Q. Is there any requirement for the audit that
written request for proposal be issued or
advertised?
A. None, no.
Q. And who did the audit the first year you
were in office?
A. Eder and Casella.
Q. Are they one of the auditors who submitted
a proposal, if you know?
A. I don't recall. I'm sorry.
Q. Now, you indicated that Mr. Brown -- when
had you been contacted by Mr. Brown, is that right?
Or you were asked when you were contacted by Mr.
Brown?
A. I think he asked me how many times perhaps.
Q. Did you receive a -- the contract in
question, did you receive that contract delivered to
you?
A. Um, I received it by certified mail, um --
Q. Let me show you what's been marked or what
will be marked Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1.
And I'll ask you if you recognize those
documents?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Again, what are they?
A. This is, um, a proposal for services from
Brown sent to me by certified mail. Um, first
notice was February 1st. Apparently it was returned
and then, um, it was sent to me again. On February
16th it was sent to an address that, um, I keep
getting forwarding, uh, stickers for so then they
reattempted it to a different address.
Q. Okay. Do you know what day you got that?
A. It -- the dates on here are 2-1 and 2-16.
I don't recall if that -- I mean, that probably is
correct.
Q. Most likely you got that April --
A. February 16th.
MR. NELSON: If I can approach, Judge, I want to
get the exhibit from the audit they have.
Do you have that?
THE COURT: Which one?
MR. NELSON: The one you have where it's signed
by the trustees.
Q. You've heard the testimony that there was a
contract signed by the trustees?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall -- well, when that might have
happened?
A. Um, at the January meeting.
Q. Okay. Did you ever receive a copy of the
contract at the January meeting?
A. No, I asked for it and I was told I could
not have it.
Q. And looking at the contract that you
received by certified mail, can you examine the
second page of that contract?
A. Sure.
Q. Is it signed by some -- a representative of
Mr. Brown's office?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there a place for signature --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for someone from the township?
What does it say?
A. You mean the signature line?
Q. Yes.
A. It just has a word title and date.
Q. Okay. Are there any lines for any
signatures by trustees?
A. No.
Q. Is there any copy of any signatures by any
trustees?
A. No.
Q. Now, going into detail, you had an unoccasioned
trip to Florida, is that right?
A. Recently, yes.
Q. And what were the dates of that?
A. Um, I believe it was a week ago Friday.
Q. And -- and as a result of that trip you
brought your son home who is a senior from college,
is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you recently made contact with Mr.
Brown to get the audit, overdue audit going?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you also made contact with the
comptroller's office, and, first, to request an
extension on the audit, and, secondly, to explain
that you would have the audit (indiscernible) as
soon as possible?
A. Yes, I went to the comptroller's office in
person.
MR. Nelson: No further questions, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DiCIANNI:

Q. Ms. Moore, are you now working with Brown &
Company to get this audit completed?
A. Um, that is my intention.
Q. So what's in the works now (indiscernible)?
Do you have a meeting?
A. This hearing.
Q. Well, not this hearing, it has nothing to
do with starting the audit.
Do you have a meeting set up with Mr.
Brown?
A. There hasn't been time yet to do that.
Q. He has contacted you several times, hasn't
he, to set up a meeting that you refused?
A. That is not true.
Q. So if he were to contact you tomorrow or
today, are you telling this court that you will set
up a meeting at the first opportunity that you can?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you telling this court that you'll
cooperate fully with Mr. Brown to get this overdue
audit completed?
A. Yes.
MR. DiCIANNI: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: The court has no questions.
Any further witnesses, Mr. DiCianni?
MR. DiCIANNI: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Any other evidence, Mr. Nelson?
MR. NELSON: Judge, if I might just look over
the -- Judge, I think we've covered all of my -- or
all of the matters addressed by the plaintiff and I
must beg the court's indulgence. I thought we had
filed our own petition. Did that make the file or
not?
THE COURT: It did not, as far as I know.
Petition for what?
MR. NELSON: We had -- we were going to request
that the court revisit the issue of (indiscernible)
fees. He represented my client.
THE COURT: Whose fees?
MR. NELSON: Attorney Rich Cowan.
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. NELSON: And we had addressed --
THE COURT: Oh, yes.
MR. NELSON: Pardon me?
THE COURT: I beg your pardon. I did receive
that.
MR. NELSON: We also (indiscernible) our -- our
view of the nature of the audit of bills by the
township. Those two points (indiscernible) I would
only call my client, if necessary, to offer
testimony that she Mr. Cowan pre-litigation in
matters related to her official position as township
supervisor when she was in conflict with the
trustees.
THE COURT: Mr. DiCianni, any position on the
matter?
MR. DiCIANNI: I don't have -- I don't recall --
I don't believe Mr. Nelson's petition -- I don't
have a position in opposition until I know more
about it. I don't believe Mr. Nelson's position
included invoices and billing records for Mr. Cowan,
and if I'm wrong Mr. Nelson can correct me. I don't
believe it did. So I don't think I can take a
position at this point. I don't believe the court
has approved those bills.
THE COURT: I have not.
MR. DiCIANNI: And I'm not saying that Mr.
Cowan's bills are -- that there isn't an argument or
position for Mr. Cowan's bills to be paid if we have
enough information. I believe it's almost a new
request, not so much in a -- actually, counsel is
asking (indiscernible).
THE COURT: It may not be a new request, it may
be a belated request.
MR. DiCIANNI: Maybe the solution is for counsel
to submit Mr. Cowan's bills, we can review them.
THE COURT: The only thing we have in the file
at the moment is a response filed on February 24th.
I don't have any other petitions in the court file
at the moment. I don't know what the reason for
that would be, but --
MR. NELSON: (Indiscernible) we'll take full
responsibility. I would have brought a copy, but
our computer crashed.
THE COURT: Well, resubmit it and we'll hear it
at a later date.
MR. NELSON: Do you want to set a date for
decision, your Honor?
THE COURT: I can do that now if you want.
MR. NELSON: Sure.
THE COURT: Well, assuming it's filed within the
next seven days, how much time would you need to
respond to it, Mr. DiCianni?
MR. DiCIANNI: Seven days.
THE COURT: I'll set it for hearing on March
24th.
MR. DiCIANNI: This is only on that second --
THE COURT: Right, only on that petition.
MR. DiCIANNI: That's fine.
THE COURT: Anything else, gentlemen?
MR. DiCIANNI: Do you want argument on this?
THE COURT: No.
MR. DiCIANNI: Your Honor, regarding the items
in our motion for enforcement of the order,
regarding payment, outstanding bills, the court
clearly held that -- that the township board has the
authority to contract on behalf of the township,
that Mr. -- obviously Ms. Moore doesn't have to
agree with those, but the township has the authority
to contract for the township. She -- if directed
to, she must sign those contracts if it involves a
written contract that needs to be signed, but at a
minimum, she must pay the bills that are generated
as a result of those contracts.
We submitted eleven instances in which
Ms. Moore, since the court's order, has refused --
has not paid these bills. Now these bills have been
approved repeatedly, both before the court's order
and since the court's order by the township board.
The court confirmed the township board's ability to
contract so it's nothing that -- none of the action
that they took prior to the court's order was void
in any way. So she has no excuse for not paying
these bills.
We argue that she should be required to pay
all of these bills. They were all for township
purposes. She may not agree with the township
purposes and they may have been contentious at the
time, but nevertheless, nobody is ordering anything
here for purposes of their own personal usage.
There is no evidence to prove these political
arguments. Packets for an annual town meeting where
both sides of the resolutions were going to be
presented, regardless of how the electors vote, are
presented. Notices to a portion of the township
with the newest residents whom have not,
historically, been attending meetings. There is
nothing political about any of this. These -- these
are -- these are legitimate township expenses.
The Lamp, Inc., bill was all incurred prior
to the court's ruling that the -- that the project
should stop, and it was legitimate township expense.
In fact, Ms. Moore, in Exhibit F, which I neglected
to introduce into evidence, but I will move now to
introduce into evidence the exhibits which we've
identified, most of which are attached to the
motion, the only one I didn't is Exhibit F which
I'll submit to the court in a second. This was a
bill which was sent to Ms. Moore in which the vendor
says to Ms. Moore, these services were all incurred
prior to the court's injunction. And this, of
course, is not this injunction, of course, it's the
one regarding the other one, and that -- that
litigation could have never existed had this bill
not been incurred because this bill had to do with
the architectural design for the project that was
the subject of a litigation, all of that preceded
that prior litigation. Certainly the court has not
ruled that none of those pre-litigation bills are to
the paid. The court has approved billing of the
attorneys, the court has approved other bills, or
other bills that we paid.
So we contend there is no basis for
Ms. Moore to continue to refuse to pay these bills,
and the only reason she's refusing to pay them is
because she disagrees with them. And -- but this
court specifically held Moore also does not have the
discretion to refuse to sign contracts which she
personally disagrees as supervisor. In some
instance it may be signing the contract, in some
instances, her execution of the contract is to pay
the bill and she's refusing to do that.
Regarding the access to township financial
records, this court ruled:
Access to the financial information of the
township has been a primary source of contention
between the parties. There does not appear to be
any evidentiary measure of agreement on whether the
QuickBook records of the township financial records
is capable of being created in a read only format.
If that can be done, it must be done without delay.
If it cannot be done within that software program,
Moore is obligated to find a software program with
that capability.
Ms. Moore said herself she's done nothing.
She was told by QuickBooks that it can't be done.
Well, she hasn't found any other software programs
to give that capability.
What she's offered to the township board is
exactly what she was offering prior to the
preliminary injunction litigation that we had before
the court, which the court found inadequate and
we've attached segments from the transcript from
that prior --
THE COURT: When we had the injunction hearing,
it was the thumb drive.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, that's what -- the finger
drive is what --
THE COURT: The finger drive.
MR. DiCIANNI: Yeah, that's what she's offering
now.
some -- a representative of
Mr. Brown's office?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there a place for signature --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for someone from the township?
What does it say?
A. You mean the signature line?
Q. Yes.
A. It just has a word title and date.
Q. Okay. Are there any lines for any
signatures by trustees?
A. No.
Q. Is there any copy of any signatures by any
trustees?
A. No.
Q. Now, going into detail, you had an unoccasioned
trip to Florida, is that right?
A. Recently, yes.
Q. And what were the dates of that?
A. Um, I believe it was a week ago Friday.
Q. And -- and as a result of that trip you
brought your son home who is a senior from college,
is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you recently made contact with Mr.
Brown to get the audit, overdue audit going?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you also made contact with the
comptroller's office, and, first, to request an
extension on the audit, and, secondly, to explain
that you would have the audit (indiscernible) as
soon as possible?
A. Yes, I went to the comptroller's office in
person.
MR. Nelson: No further questions, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DiCIANNI:

Q. Ms. Moore, are you now working with Brown &
Company to get this audit completed?
A. Um, that is my intention.
Q. So what's in the works now (indiscernible)?
Do you have a meeting?
A. This hearing.
Q. Well, not this hearing, it has nothing to
do with starting the audit.
Do you have a meeting set up with Mr.
Brown?
A. There hasn't been time yet to do that.
Q. He has contacted you several times, hasn't
he, to set up a meeting that you refused?
A. That is not true.
Q. So if he were to contact you tomorrow or
today, are you telling this court that you will set
up a meeting at the first opportunity that you can?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you telling this court that you'll
cooperate fully with Mr. Brown to get this overdue
audit completed?
A. Yes.
MR. DiCIANNI: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: The court has no questions.
Any further witnesses, Mr. DiCianni?
MR. DiCIANNI: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Any other evidence, Mr. Nelson?
MR. NELSON: Judge, if I might just look over
the -- Judge, I think we've covered all of my -- or
all of the matters addressed by the plaintiff and I
must beg the court's indulgence. I thought we had
filed our own petition. Did that make the file or
not?
THE COURT: It did not, as far as I know.
Petition for what?
MR. NELSON: We had -- we were going to request
that the court revisit the issue of (indiscernible)
fees. He represented my client.
THE COURT: Whose fees?
MR. NELSON: Attorney Rich Cowan.
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. NELSON: And we had addressed --
THE COURT: Oh, yes.
MR. NELSON: Pardon me?
THE COURT: I beg your pardon. I did receive
that.
MR. NELSON: We also (indiscernible) our -- our
view of the nature of the audit of bills by the
township. Those two points (indiscernible) I would
only call my client, if necessary, to offer
testimony that she Mr. Cowan pre-litigation in
matters related to her official position as township
supervisor when she was in conflict with the
trustees.
THE COURT: Mr. DiCianni, any position on the
matter?
MR. DiCIANNI: I don't have -- I don't recall --
I don't believe Mr. Nelson's petition -- I don't
have a position in opposition until I know more
about it. I don't believe Mr. Nelson's position
included invoices and billing records for Mr. Cowan,
and if I'm wrong Mr. Nelson can correct me. I don't
believe it did. So I don't think I can take a
position at this point. I don't believe the court
has approved those bills.
THE COURT: I have not.
MR. DiCIANNI: And I'm not saying that Mr.
Cowan's bills are -- that there isn't an argument or
position for Mr. Cowan's bills to be paid if we have
enough information. I believe it's almost a new
request, not so much in a -- actually, counsel is
asking (indiscernible).
THE COURT: It may not be a new request, it may
be a belated request.
MR. DiCIANNI: Maybe the solution is for counsel
to submit Mr. Cowan's bills, we can review them.
THE COURT: The only thing we have in the file
at the moment is a response filed on February 24th.
I don't have any other petitions in the court file
at the moment. I don't know what the reason for
that would be, but --
MR. NELSON: (Indiscernible) we'll take full
responsibility. I would have brought a copy, but
our computer crashed.
THE COURT: Well, resubmit it and we'll hear it
at a later date.
MR. NELSON: Do you want to set a date for
decision, your Honor?
THE COURT: I can do that now if you want.
MR. NELSON: Sure.
THE COURT: Well, assuming it's filed within the
next seven days, how much time would you need to
respond to it, Mr. DiCianni?
MR. DiCIANNI: Seven days.
THE COURT: I'll set it for hearing on March
24th.
MR. DiCIANNI: This is only on that second --
THE COURT: Right, only on that petition.
MR. DiCIANNI: That's fine.
THE COURT: Anything else, gentlemen?
MR. DiCIANNI: Do you want argument on this?
THE COURT: No.
MR. DiCIANNI: Your Honor, regarding the items
in our motion for enforcement of the order,
regarding payment, outstanding bills, the court
clearly held that -- that the township board has the
authority to contract on behalf of the township,
that Mr. -- obviously Ms. Moore doesn't have to
agree with those, but the township has the authority
to contract for the township. She -- if directed
to, she must sign those contracts if it involves a
written contract that needs to be signed, but at a
minimum, she must pay the bills that are generated
as a result of those contracts.
We submitted eleven instances in which
Ms. Moore, since the court's order, has refused --
has not paid these bills. Now these bills have been
approved repeatedly, both before the court's order
and since the court's order by the township board.
The court confirmed the township board's ability to
contract so it's nothing that -- none of the action
that they took prior to the court's order was void
in any way. So she has no excuse for not paying
these bills.
We argue that she should be required to pay
all of these bills. They were all for township
purposes. She may not agree with the township
purposes and they may have been contentious at the
time, but nevertheless, nobody is ordering anything
here for purposes of their own personal usage.
There is no evidence to prove these political
arguments. Packets for an annual town meeting where
both sides of the resolutions were going to be
presented, regardless of how the electors vote, are
presented. Notices to a portion of the township
with the newest residents whom have not,
historically, been attending meetings. There is
nothing political about any of this. These -- these
are -- these are legitimate township expenses.
The Lamp, Inc., bill was all incurred prior
to the court's ruling that the -- that the project
should stop, and it was legitimate township expense.
In fact, Ms. Moore, in Exhibit F, which I neglected
to introduce into evidence, but I will move now to
introduce into evidence the exhibits which we've
identified, most of which are attached to the
motion, the only one I didn't is Exhibit F which
I'll submit to the court in a second. This was a
bill which was sent to Ms. Moore in which the vendor
says to Ms. Moore, these services were all incurred
prior to the court's injunction. And this, of
course, is not this injunction, of course, it's the
one regarding the other one, and that -- that
litigation could have never existed had this bill
not been incurred because this bill had to do with
the architectural design for the project that was
the subject of a litigation, all of that preceded
that prior litigation. Certainly the court has not
ruled that none of those pre-litigation bills are to
the paid. The court has approved billing of the
attorneys, the court has approved other bills, or
other bills that we paid.
So we contend there is no basis for
Ms. Moore to continue to refuse to pay these bills,
and the only reason she's refusing to pay them is
because she disagrees with them. And -- but this
court specifically held Moore also does not have the
discretion to refuse to sign contracts which she
personally disagrees as supervisor. In some
instance it may be signing the contract, in some
instances, her execution of the contract is to pay
the bill and she's refusing to do that.
Regarding the access to township financial
records, this court ruled:
Access to the financial information of the
township has been a primary source of contention
between the parties. There does not appear to be
any evidentiary measure of agreement on whether the
QuickBook records of the township financial records
is capable of being created in a read only format.
If that can be done, it must be done without delay.
If it cannot be done within that software program,
Moore is obligated to find a software program with
that capability.
Ms. Moore said herself she's done nothing.
She was told by QuickBooks that it can't be done.
Well, she hasn't found any other software programs
to give that capability.
What she's offered to the township board is
exactly what she was offering prior to the
preliminary injunction litigation that we had before
the court, which the court found inadequate and
we've attached segments from the transcript from
that prior --
THE COURT: When we had the injunction hearing,
it was the thumb drive.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, that's what -- the finger
drive is what --
THE COURT: The finger drive.
MR. DiCIANNI: Yeah, that's what she's offering
now.
THE COURT: No, she's not.
MR. DiCIANNI: I believe so.
THE COURT: No, I don't think (indiscernible)
evidence.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well --
THE COURT: My understanding was that this
laptop computer is connected to the server and that
everything is updated as the financial programs are
changed. It is not a finger drive.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well --
THE COURT: That's not stale information.
MR. DiCIANNI: -- we contest --
THE COURT: The only question I have is the
format in which it's offered on the laptop.
MR. DiCIANNI: We contest that, your Honor, and
I would ask the court, I suppose, to allow us or
somebody you might appoint to monitor that
independently to go in and do a study on that
because there is a huge disagreement between what's
actually available and what's being provided.
And the next part of this is probably maybe
the more controversial part, but you ordered access.
We submit that access should be provided remotely;
and inherent in the court's decision is meaningful
access, not access that requires Ms. Moore to be
there sitting there with the board. The board has a
legitimate, important auditing function. This can
be done, according to proposal that's been
submitted, for a modest amount of money; and why
anyone, why the supervisor would be capable --
interpreting her statutory duties as broadly as one
could of denying this type of access to the board is
completely unreasonable.
We submit, your Honor, that Ms. Moore
should be obligated -- first of all, we believe
there should be some independent review that would
allow somebody to go in. We can -- both sides can
make submissions as to who would do that and do a
complete evaluation of what is exactly offered
there. This court has the authority. You see it in
the civil rights cases all the time to order
monitoring or independent reviews to see whether
court orders have been appropriately. So we would
ask for that.
And we would also ask that remote access be
allowed to the trustees, which the proposal shows
could be done quite easily and at a modest cost.
Regarding the audit, it seems that that
issue is moot. Ms. Moore -- the court is critical,
I suppose, of how it all went down at the meeting.
THE COURT: The problem is, it didn't go down at
the meeting. The problem is, is that the deal went
down outside of the meeting. It went down outside
of city hall or township hall. It went down when
Mr. LaPorta cozied up with Mr. Brown and negotiated
a contract and presented a contract to the board as
a fait accompli.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, the court's heard that
there have been months --
THE COURT: It is not the way public bodies do
business --
MR. DiCIANNI: That may be the case.
THE COURT: -- and you know that.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, and I submit, though, your
Honor, there's a lot that's been going on in that
location inconsistent with how public bodies have
done business.
Nevertheless, this is a contract that was
approved at a board meeting. It wasn't required to
be bid. Had Ms. Moore brought proposals to the
board, real proposals, not just saying, I have a
guy, real proposals to the board, maybe it would
have been done in a more reasonable manner, but this
audit is overdue. I think Mr. LaPorta was acting
out of frustration. Nevertheless, the contract has
been approved and Ms. Moore has agreed that she is
going to comply with it and why wouldn't she.
So at this point, your Honor, I would say
that the court should set a short date to determine
the progress of the audit in the course of enforcing
the order.
The board has the authority, as the court
ruled, to contract and the board has contracted with
an IT company to perform --
THE COURT: IT Solutions?
MR. DiCIANNI: Yes.
THE COURT: (Indiscernible).
MR. DiCIANNI: That's denied?
THE COURT: Don't hold your breath.
MR. DiCIANNI: That's denied?
THE COURT: Not going to happen. Contracts
negotiated by Pam Fender do not stand on solid
ground in front of me, number one; and number two,
this is for remote access?
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, it's for all services, all
of the computer-related services.
That's the relief that we're seeking. We
would ask for sanctions. I think that much of
Ms. Moore's refusal to act is out of nothing but
wilful obstreperousness and we would ask the court
to just sanctions, including forfeiture of her bond
for failure to pay bills, which the township code
specifically authorized. The General Assembly at
some point in time thought it important enough to
make this such a serious transgression of the
supervisor's duties that it's subject to forfeiture
of her bond. I would only assume that at some point
in time the General Assembly -- this was a way of
supervisors vetoing the actions of the board, and
the General Assembly saw that to be something
serious enough to provide a statutory remedy of
forfeiture.
That's all I have.
THE COURT: Mr. Nelson.

MR. NELSON: Thank you very much, your Honor.
Do you want me to stand before the bench?
THE COURT: Anywhere you want.
MR. NELSON: Judge, there are four aspects to
the motion for enforcement of preliminary
injunction. The first has to do with the bills. I
don't know that there is a wide variance in the
facts. The Lamp, Inc., bill, there is a letter from
the architect that the services that he billed for
that says that the services he billed for were
before the injunction was entered. But all that is
is a broad representation. My client asked for some
documentation or support for that and has yet to
receive any and she's under an injunction,
essentially, in another case, not to pay anything
connected with what's been enjoined and I think she
had a reasonable right to expect more than just a
sentence from an architect than, you know, take my
word for it, got to pay my bill.
The legal services bill. That is a bill
that Ms. Moore has indicated a willingness to pay.
However, again, there is the problem, not with --
and the problem is -- and this is a township that's
essentially subject to litigation, not just between
themselves, but from outside individuals and there
is a problem when you don't give proper notice of
the action you're going to take at a meeting. That
action is subject to being reversed and I think all
that's needed to be done to pay the Jim Kelly bill
is for proper notice to be given of a transfer of
funds from the proper account to legal bills which
this clearly is.
Elgin Lock & Key, that bill should not be
paid. It was undertaken by, I think, a trustee or
the township administrator for an improper purpose;
and if Elgin Lock & Key filed suit, your Honor, I
don't think they would be entitled to recover.
The same is true, we believe, for D, E, F,
G, H, I and J, and we've made those points in our
response.
You know, if this court feels otherwise,
you know, my client will pay those bills, but as we
stated in our response, there has to be a check and
balance somewhere and the check and balance at this
juncture is my client not paying the bills.
Meaningful access to township financial
records. The court, I think, has fully heard the
evidence, and I would indicate that counsel's
request at this time is premature. The testimony of
the one trustee that has testified is that she's
computer literate, but was too busy to even give it
a try. So there is no trustees who have -- and the
testimony is clear that none of the trustees have
gone in and attempted to view the financial records,
come into court and made any case that there isn't
an ability for them to in private review
up-to-the-date financial records.
And I don't -- the testimony of the former
administrator during the trial of the case-in-chief
indicated that he required his trustees to come in
and review bills and review everything within the
township hall, and Ms. Moore has indicated that she
would make special arrangement with the trustees to
make sure they had private access to these updated
records at any time. And we don't know -- there is
no evidence that that doesn't or can't happen,
because none of the trustees have taken advantage of
the system put into view, not that that's a
surprise, but (indiscernible) that's the way.
So we would suggest that the idea of an
independent review, especially, is premature.
IT Solutions, the court's already
addressed. We would submit there is, in fact, no
contract and the audit, Judge, we pointed out in our
response that the actual contract for the audit was
after the court's order; and so if this is a motion
for enforcement of the court's order, we don't
believe that that's proper. Counsel has argued that
it's moot so I don't -- I don't really know, I
guess, why I'm addressing it that much.
That's all I have to say at the moment. I
submit my other motion and --
MR. DiCIANNI: May I reply?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. DiCIANNI: Your Honor, the Kelly bill has
been on agendas every month for months, maybe years.
So the question of proper notice to the public is a
red herring.
I agree with Ms. Zirk that when a vote
comes up to approve a bill and pay it and a decision
is made to make a transfer between a line item, it
doesn't need to be a separate action item on the
agenda. That's like saying you would have to have
the -- writing the check has to be a separate line
item on the agenda once the bill is approved,
putting a stamp on the envelope has to be a separate
line item on the agenda in order to have that be
acted on at a meeting. That Kelly bill has been
around forever and that's merely just a red herring.
Regarding all the other bills, your Honor,
they were for township purposes, obviously Ms. Moore
didn't agree with some of them, but they were all
for township purposes. They weren't for other than
township purposes, they weren't for political
purposes. That would be the court's major concern.
There is no evidence of that. They were for
management of the township. Some of them, based on
the court's order are things that won't happen
again, but there is no question they were for
purposes of township business and the court has held
the township has the ability to contract.
Regarding the financial records, we only
have Linda Moore's word to know what the status of
those records are. She says that they're updated.
Our people say all it is is plugging in a drive.
She said they're not on the server. She testified
they're not on the server. So how can they possibly
be networked to the server to this laptop. By what?
Are they -- do they have Wi-Fi? They don't have
Wi-Fi there. That's just -- it's unbelievable
testimony and all we have at this point is what she
says; and with nobody else having true access to
what's in there, there is no other way to find out
other than to have some independent review.
Regarding the audit, counsel can even say
we're going to be here every -- every week if
counsel is going to take the position that because
the bill (indiscernible) came after the court's
order. She doesn't necessarily have to pay it.
We'll be here weekly to get bills paid.
The court has held that the board has the
authority to contract. Ms. Moore must implement
those contracts, either by signing them or paying
them, whatever that is. She doesn't have the
discretion, because she disagrees with it, not to
execute it.
The audit contract came after. The court's
critical about how it came about, but nevertheless,
it was properly executed at a meeting on the agenda
and it appears to be moot, but we do want the court
to monitor that by some short status date where I
can present a report to the court or Mr. Nelson can
present a report to the court, preferably from the
auditor, as to the status of the audit.
THE COURT: On the subject of these bills,
starting with the architect fees and the legal fees,
fees -- any fees related to the construction of
the -- proposed construction of a new town hall have
always been a matter of controversy and contention
between Ms. Moore and the trustee, primarily over
where, if beyond the point of whether they should be
paid, but they've been a contest over where they
should be properly placed in the budget. The
trustees keep insisting that they have to post
this -- these legal fees in the building or the
capital improvements are in the building budget,
they have a special fund for that. I disagree with
that and I think Ms. Moore's disagreement with it is
well taken and well founded.
When I made my injunction, when I enjoined
the further construction of that hall, what I found
was that the action taken by the township trustees
in going forward with that was illegal. Now, that
did not have any retroactive effect. The action of
the township up until the time of my injunction
order enjoining the building of the new town hall,
and at least during that period of time the
presumption of legitimacy, so that bills incurred,
either in developing the building or in defending
the plan by the attorney are properly payable by the
township.
I have a problem with continuing to credit
or to account for these monies in that -- in that
fund because that fund has been declared to be
illegal. These then, therefore, can only go one
place and that is, for lack of a better term, a
general corporate fund of the township.
MR. DiCIANNI: Or the attorneys fees.
THE COURT: I'm assuming there's an attorney's
fee item in the general fund.
MR. DiCIANNI: Or -- that's been -- yeah, and
that's been taken care of.
THE COURT: And that's where it goes. Now, if
it doesn't have money in it, I disagree with you,
MR. DiCIANNI, if you're going to be amending the
budget, that's an item on the agenda because the
public is entitled to know that their agenda is
being -- is being amended and the failure to pay the
bills based upon the way it was presented is neither
wilful nor contumacious nor a violation of
Ms. Moore's duty.
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.
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.
On the issue of -- so the Kelly bill and
the Lamp bill are payable and they're payable out of
the general fund.
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.
I will not approve -- how did this mailing
start, the mailing to Del Webb and why does Del Webb
get mailings and the rest of the township doesn't?
MR. DiCIANNI: Because they weren't coming to
the meetings and didn't know about it.
THE COURT: They can do it like anybody else
does, read it in the newspaper. That's where it is.
It's in the Herald.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, it doesn't make it an
illegal expenditure, your Honor, it's a --
THE COURT: I think it's purely political.
MR. DiCIANNI: So I --
THE COURT: I think it is political because it
appeals to a voting block.
MR. DiCIANNI: There has been no evidence that
that voting block has any particular predilection
politically either way.
THE COURT: You target a mailing to a seniors'
community and you want me to believe that it's not
political?
MR. DiCIANNI: They would be the last ones to --
THE COURT: It would be hard to --
MR. DiCIANNI: They would be the last ones who
would want to approve the building, if that's what
the insinuation is from the point --
THE COURT: I can't say that.
MR. DiCIANNI: Well, there are suppositions
there, your Honor, that I think are not part of the
evidence.
THE COURT: She was justified in not paying it.
Q & A Reporting. The trustees have a right
to have a transcript of their proceedings if they
wish. The Q & A Reporting bill should be paid.
Excellence in Copying. If you want to have
additional matters from the agenda printed up to be
available for the public for the use and inspection
at the meeting, that certainly is a legitimate cost.
Point of Video, the same thing.
Now, on the access to the bills, the
court's going to find that the access to the
bills -- to the financial records as described by me
today by Linda Moore in her testimony is adequate to
comply with the court's order. She has stated that
the records are available during normal business
hours, Monday through Friday. They are available at
other times by appointment. I don't find that to be
unreasonable on its face. I am accepting
Ms. Moore's description of what she has made
available on the laptop computer because, quite
frankly, she is the only one that I know of who has
actually seen it or used it or set it up. The
motion here is brought upon basically suspicion,
innuendo, supposition and conjecture; that, because
the trustees don't like it. They want remote
access, remote access isn't necessary.
The problem I have with the Internet is
that once you get on the Internet there are all
sorts of opportunities for mischief, that quite
frankly, in this township we don't need. I don't
need it and you don't need it.
Now, I shouldn't have to say this, and I
guess the reason I'm sort of chagrinned by this
whole thing is when I said the trustees had the
power to contract, what I meant was that the
trustees have the power to make a motion to approve
the entry into a contract; and then when I went on
in my decision to talk about Linda Moore's
obligation to sign the contracts, it is also her
right as the trustee -- as the supervisor to sign
those contracts which have been approved by the
board. It is a ministerial function of the
supervisor. It is demeaning and insulting for the
board to sit there, approve a contract for a vendor
and then sign it and not give her a copy. It is her
right to sign it, not yours. She is the chief
executive officer of the city. That's what they do.
That's what they're supposed to do.
MR. DiCIANNI: What if she refuses to sign it
which is what --
THE COURT: That's not the issue.
MR. DiCIANNI: -- was evidenced.
THE COURT: That's not the issue here. The
issue here wasn't that she refused to sign it. The
issue here was that it was approved by the trustees,
they all signed it, she asked for a copy and she
wasn't give it. They do it and then run around
somebody; and, again, this is another instance of
the trustees going off and trying to marginalize or
avoid the responsibility for the duties of the
trustee.
It's not punishable at this moment in time,
but I want to caution everybody in the courtroom
who's involved in this case:
The orders of this court have the force of
law and they are supposed to be observed. Now, I
know people who think they are more clever than I am
and they probably are, but what happens to cute and
clever people from time to time is they get too cute
and they get too clever and they may suddenly find
themselves in direct violation of a court order.
When that happens, my discretion is always
exercised with a jail term. I have never fined
anybody for direct criminal contempt. I have jailed
people for direct criminal contempt. Only twice in
13 years and I regretted the necessity to do both,
but, folks, believe me, I'm not going to tolerate a
lot of this nonsense in the future because I think
that, by and large, there should be a way for this
township to be governed in a much less contentious
manner.
Do you want time to write this up?
MR. DiCIANNI: Yes.
THE COURT: Two weeks.
MR. DiCIANNI: Thank you.
THE COURT: Give me an order continuing it.
(WHICH WERE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS.
HAD ON THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE
THIS DATE.)

STATE OF ILLINOIS ))
SS.
COUNTY OF McHENRY )
IN THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS

I, Karen B. Rossbach, one of the Official
Court Reporters of the 19th Judicial Circuit of
Illinois, do hereby certify that I reported in
shorthand the proceedings had at the hearing of the
above-entitled cause, and that the foregoing is a
true and correct transcription of all the
proceedings heard.
______________________________
Official Court Reporter