The Price and Cost of Price’s Criminal Career Within the Community of Harvey from 2007 To Today

There is no “alleged” whenever someone wants to discuss Keith Price’s criminal career.

He is a criminal, the public can see it for themselves and the courts have acknowledged and affirmed this…only Price and his allies still cling to their denials and complete rejection of such a notion.

The first act of criminality was when he chose to accept 3 elected position in 2007, rather than declining on two and then taking the seat of his choice:  Alderman for the City of Harvey, District 152 School Board Member or Harvey Park District Commissioner.   My lead sentence for this paragraph is a little misleading, as their is a difference between contemplating the commission of a crime and actually following through on it, as I will explain in a bit how that fits in with this whole notion a series of crimes were committed by Price and yet he was never held accountable for being found guilty for this starting point of his crimes.

Price’s planned entry point into the New and Improved “Harvey Rising Long Con Game; Brought to You by Kellogg and Crew” actually can be a politician’s dream situation for some who are interested in a career in politics.  There is nothing inherently wrong with a candidate running on multiple ballot, nor is there anything wrong with winning more than one race.  In fact, candidates make this type of a choice for a variety of reasons and not all are nefarious and evil, such as when someone wants to intentionally split the vote so their candidate of choice wins (now that’s a power play robbing the public of their voice, right??).  It can even play well in future elections by projecting cross-platform popularity.

Therefore, one could argue momentarily that running for multiple positions and then winning all the seats he ran was not the first crime he committed.  It is known fact that it is not, by default, illegal to hold two elected seats.  Its all about incompatibility factors of the offices.

So to take this a step further, one could argue on its surface that this was a clean sweep for him–after all, someone must be pretty good at governing and working with the public to secure even 2 seats, let alone 3 seats in a city the size of Harvey.  That’s the power of popularity, right?  Or it certainly picks out our Public Servants from a crowd of candidates vying for the jobs–most of the time.

Now if you will allow me to move you towards the first visible and provable entry point to the first criminal act. First, it wasn’t a crime the first time he ever walked through the doors of the first municipal unit he chose to enter. 

In many ways, he had every right to wake up that first day of the new job he picked and feel damn good about himself and his recent election victories.  In fact, he would have every right to feel downright great about it.  He even had a chance to let second and third thoughts to stop him from following through with his plan of accepting all three seats.

However, if one looks at his career based on election highlights only (not the daily line item offenses), the first real series of crimes started the moment he walked into the second municipal unit he chose to walk into as an elected government official and then demanding all of the authority that comes with the office, and then going to the third and doing the same!

Fairly clear law and precedence should have been more than enough to persuade Price to avoid this next illegal act, and yet he still went ahead and began acting on behalf of all three municipal units.

It’s impossible to track back for sure which job he went to first; City Hall, the Park District or District 152, but one thing is certain; he was now a criminal taking evasive actions to avoid confrontation and possible capture by the law while doing who knows what and when to accomplish such an objective.

That’s one of those quirky personality traits about criminals operating disguised as government officials.  Here Price believed he would be able to operate in the theoretical wide-open on a daily basis unencumbered by any call for his removal from office and he ended up being right. The Kellogg Machine has so far been quite victorious battle after battle, not because the documents say it should be that way, rather their propaganda machine is so well-oiled, the volume of their message tends to muffle the true demands of the larger public body.

In other words, plausible deniability or not, those with authority stayed silent enough long enough to allow the next major illegal act to occur and it’s a real doozy.

But as a quick side doozy just to make you even more woozy on our way down the path from #YesterYears to today, Price ran for Alderman in 2007 on the incumbent Mayor’s ticket, Eric Kellogg, who first took office in 2003.  That matters because in 2007, the FBI was running an operation in the City of Harvey using an agent by the alias of Carlos Vargas (view my Carlos Vargas Switchboard, which contains a thick list of names, links, etc. regarding the topic and you decide).  Part of this operation involved Vargas transferring well over $100,000 to Kellogg’s campaign, thus contributing to Price’s campaign as Alderman and thus Price’s subsequent victory in that particular race and possibly all three.

There are many documents that reflect this to be fundamental fact and the Chicago Tribune did a fairly thorough job stitching the story together using the materials they acquired.  However, there seems to have also been Denial By Silence message sent by the FBI regarding the question of whether or not taxpayer dollars were used, let alone the denial about Vargas and the operation not influencing the 2007 election.

Even multiple calls for a review of the FBI’s activities in early 2014 by United States Senators Mark Kirk and Dick Durbin and United States Representative Robin Kelly didn’t produce anything that managed to filter into the mainstream to bring clarity and maybe even–dare someone hope–closure to the matter.

Now back to Price and his criminal career trajectory using his positions of government official as his “official cover.”  Between 2007 and 2009, a thick foundation of actions and activities were performed in all four major municipal units governing the community of Harvey, but his next major crime happened the moment he began to plan to run for election in 2009 for a seat on the Library Board.

He already had more than a year of day to day illegal activities under his belt in all 3 municipalities when he began campaigning for the seat on the library, but he most likely didn’t just wake up the day petitions were allowed to be circulated and decide to run either.  Intent and motive matters and both must have been present prior to this specific series of actions.

This just keeps getting worse…err…better, right?

So how was his running for office illegal?

Easy.  His whole platform, reputation and support was built on his previous criminal activities in City Hall, the school district and the Park District.

This is just the dippiest of trips down #FlashbackLane, especially for an outsider like me, right?

So from 2009 until 2011–a nice and comfy 730’ish day period for him apparently–he was holding down seats in all four major municipal units in Harvey directly and indirectly influencing virtually every aspect of the community except for issues relegated to upper management, like the Township and County.

Take a look at how Price says that in response to his being “removed” from several offices, he is going to not only file against 20 elected officials that hold multiple positions. He is a little incoherent with his “If I can’t do it, I don’t want anyone else allowed to do it and if they can do it, I want to be allowed to do it. I maybe naming myself, when I name….names.” HUH???   What is this nonsense about being “allowed” to file a complaint or not being “allowed” while name dropping on one political target?



His justification?  Straight from the Alvarez and the People vs. Keith Price case No. 1-10-2009 and decided March 16, 2011: “On September 1, 2010, Price filed his response to the motion for summary judgment. Price argued that the State failed to allege any facts showing any incompatibility of his offices, or to identify any specific recusal, action or inaction on his part demonstrating an incompatibility of offices. Price also argued that there was no division of loyalty on his part because all of his offices served the citizens of Harvey.

While it remains fact all four of the offices served the citizens of Harvey, he was too busy serving his own personal agenda to pay any attention to the wake of destruction and devastation his own singular actions left behind from his actions.

Let me repeat one part again.

Keith Price of Harvey, Illinois was holding elected positions in all four major municipal units in Harvey directly and indirectly influencing virtually every aspect of the community except for issues relegated to upper management, like the Township, County and State for a 730’ish day period from 2009 until 2011, give or take a handful of days.

For basically two years, Keith Price had access to files he otherwise had no right to access, just on the fundamental that he would have had to FOIA the information as a private citizen if he had been on the outside of the office and the municipal unit.

In fact, in September 2009 Harvey Library meeting minutes, it reflects a request from Price to see all employee time cards “…to get a feel for staff hours.”  No Board member is permitted to see the personal and private information of an employee any more freely than the public is and while it is unknown if this request was ever filled, the request itself should have been immediately rebuked and rejected on record.  Instead, one is left wondering if Price made this request for personal and private information of employees at all of the municipal units he represented and if any or all requests were fulfilled.  It would be likely there would be no proper redacting of information, nor would other protocols have been put in place, either.

So for two years, he had obligations to individual municipal units he could not honor due to clear conflicts of interest and in some cases, who knows what level his acts should be elevated to.

For simple line item demonstration purposes, it was stated in January 2010 Harvey Library meeting minutes that the City of Harvey owed the library $40,000 in corporate replacement taxes and that the Director was looking into it.  (There were other actions that can at least raise an eyebrow or two in question).

Now how is that supposed to work again?  Library Trustee Price is obligated to the library to pursue all debtors with firmness and sterness.  Harvey Alderman Price is obligated to the city to ensure all debts are paid in a timely and responsible manner.  How does Price tell the library board that the City is behind in its bills and that they would have to be extra cautious until corrections took effect?  How does Price tell the City board that the library is in serious need of the funds and that priority needed to be given in some measure and quarter?  How much information should Alderman Price share with Library Trustee Price that may or may not be easily accessible by the public?

Some more points on how the Harvey Public Library was cheated out of Price being a single municipal unit Trustee:

1.  Instead of Price helping the library acquire two copies of the municipal code book for the City of Harvey as prescribed by law, he supported the absence and eventual take-down of the municipal code book in an online format via MuniCode, their codification company.

2.  Instead of Price helping the library acquire a full and complete archive of meeting minutes and agendas for all municipal units, he supported their absence from even an online status at City Hall and other municipal units.

3.  Instead of Price pursuing grants for the library with his free time from other library matters, he was off gallivanting and consuming the perks at City Hall, the Park District and District 152 while building his resume and his Rolodex.

4.  Instead of Price pursuing the City of Harvey for its unpaid debts to the library, complete with threat of legal action if not paid by a certain time, he was able to buy the City of Harvey at least a smidge more breathing room with its Creative Accounting Needs, such as all of the times the water fund was stolen from and then used for who knows what, besides the purchases already challenged on public record.

5.  Instead of Price helping plan for the unavoidable delays in payments from the city that were scheduled and predicted to occur, he voted for the library expansion in 2014 that is now part and parcel of the existing financial stresses and turmoil the library is facing, including the possibility of it having to close its doors.

These are just micro examples of why those two particular seats are incompatible, but even real estate deals, public works issues and public way legal squabble also pose severe threat of significant reduction of ability to perform the duties of any of the four offices simultaneously.

And since this all is happening in the Chicagoland area, of course there’s still going to be even more insult to the micro and macro injuries bestowed upon the masses by Price’s selfish and delusion-driven greed.

Price went all out to smash and bash former City of Harvey Alderman Lemont Brown in public and even at a Board meeting or two for a felony conviction in his youth that should have barred him from office to begin with and then a 2017 court decision that called for him to peacefully surrender his authority to hold the seat which he did.  And yet Price was not only found guilty for illegally holding onto 3 seats and re-affirmed in 2011, he continued to commit the same crime through 2015 when his library term naturally expired.  Price was one of the Plaintiff’s in the suit against Brown, in case you don’t glance at the document.

While even Brown might have questions about his conviction even to this day, he had the character and fortitude to accept the outcome, do what was asked of him and the moved his life along once he fulfilled his obligations.  Sure the taxpayers paid his bills for a while, but that’s a part of maintaining at least some semblance of a fair and just justice system.

Price even went so far as to follow through on his threat made while speaking as Alderman of the City of Harvey during the April 22, 2013 Council meeting and petitioned Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx to have Frank Zucharelli of Thornton Township to be removed from office.  This was his false force and fury of the representative of an outraged public who was demanding a removal response to such a ghastly act that was done to #PoorPrice.  Zucharelli is still in office, by the way.

So while Price hasn’t had any taxpayer dollars invested into him via the justice system’s checkbook in connection to his criminal activities beginning in 2007, he sure has been the recipient of tax dollars since the day he took office at City Hall, in salary and perks (travel, per diems, training, networking, etc.) for over 10 years now.

Sure the dollars and sources might have fluctuated some over the timeline, ebbing and flowing with the tide of cash available at any time in various municipal bank accounts, but Price also received signatory powers on the library’s bank account quite quickly after taking office, at the May 14, 2009 meeting in fact.  It’s good to have a Two Person Integrity system to help ensure that no one single individual can tap into the cash, but there are ways around this type of TPI—especially if the other signer agrees with the release of funds.

So when it comes down to discerning who is to blame for all of this happening, it is definitely an accurate matter of convenience to blame almost every facet of our system–both structurally and for what happened.  There is no denying people turned a blind eye to the matter at virtually any and every level imaginable, including the State’s Attorney’s office, let alone the whole 2007 FBI election puddle of muddled evidence.  A lot of it was timing, as it was not that people were entirely silent.

In fact, it was in 2011 that the appeals court rejected Price’s appeal, thus once again solidifying the legal outcome that Price was acting illegally and that he must take corrective actions immediately to correct the problem.

Price ignored the court order through 2015, when he committed the next series of crimes by once again running for City Alderman on a base built on his dizzyingly compounded illegal acts at the point of the 2015 election, where he was elected and then settled in as only one government official, that of an Alderman of the City of Harvey.

With one last stomach-clenching side trip, think of this.  Former Alderman Lemont Brown is yet another example of Illinois’ need to perform a thorough exam of our souls and ask whether or not obstructing all felons from office, minus a pardon, is truly the type of person we want to obstruct from office.  Putting Brown’s record next to someone like Midlothian Park District Director Dominic Egizio is a perfect example of just how twisted and perverse the broken the Community Policing Of Government Units System is here in Illinois.

Egizio’s crime was at the very least sexual harassment of a co-worker through his own admission (he did the same thing Matt Lauer got fired for) and Brown went for a ride in a stolen vehicle he states he didn’t know was stolen.  And yet Brown was taken from office via court documents because the system called for it and complete with public shaming on a regular basis during public City Council meetings, especially the day the courts concluded he needed to step down (I video taped that meeting and its on YouTube–none of it was called for in the least and definitely unethical.  It was just downright creepy, including Kellogg’s contributions).

With Egizio is was as easy for him to escape any discomfort and disconnect from his life and lifestyle as his agreeing to quietly leaving the Joliet Park District where the event occurred and then just slip himself into the Director’s position that was about to be vacated by Evelyn Gleason (the mother of District 152’s former(?) attorney William “Bill” Gleason, who is the former Attorney for the Village of Midlothian before son Gleason was fired. His mom, Evelyn is besties with the former Mayor of Midlothian, Sharon Rybak and they worked together for years at the Midlothian Park District and on the Bremen School board.  So hard to keep track of ’em all, especially when they leave one municipal unit for another.  Hope you followed!).

I think my final point of this one lone post is this.

Kellogg was smart enough (if you want to call it that) to at least take a paid position at District 152 back in the day, thus at least suggesting the offices of Mayor and Superintendent were compatible because one was employee status and one was elected.  No voting conflict.  Still trouble when a Mayor has access to personal information from personnel files in a different municipal unit in my opinion, just like in Midlothian during the Rybak administration with clear carry-over of information on numerous levels and even financing cooperation in one set of circumstances.

Keith Price, the person who willfully and knowingly put his name on multiple ballots for multiple seats through circulating petitions and getting signatures, acquired his first 3 possibly with the aid of the FBI and then at one point, was operating in all four major municipal units.

Keith Price, the person who refused to abide by the law all the way back to 2007 so he could proceed to personally benefit from being a part of the Kellogg Crew for almost 11 years.


He’s the one who decided to refuse to do what the law called for because he decided that the law doesn’t apply to him the same way it applies to everyone else.

He’s the one who decided to dare anyone to even try to suggest removing him from office because he knew he had the backing of the Kellogg machine.

He’s the one who decided to become the go-to person if you were looking for blended insider information from up to 4 municipal units during any single conversation–let alone conversations over a period of time.

He’s the one who decided to represent himself as the contact person for businesses if they wanted an in at another municipal unit, complete with his creds backing the recommendation.

He’s the one who decided the rest of the world was crazy and that he was the only one to perform those jobs to the level they deserved to be performed at [see full sentence below]

Hindsight ends up demonstrating quite clearly that was just plain delusional thinking on Price’s part, even as recent as yesterday, as he still remains Alderman for the City of Harvey.

Now here’s why I did that little weird creative touch a few paragraphs up.  First, someone truly needs to take a serious trip down #FlashbackLane and revisit the whole 2007 election cycle and what led up to it.  But here is the full sentence I wanted to publish as my closing paragraph.

Keith Price is the one who first decided the rest of the world was crazy and that he was the only one who could perform those jobs to the levels and loyalties they deserved to be performed at–

and Price clearly took the “’The Harvey Rising Long Con’: Brought To You By Kellogg And Crew” playbook and more than kept up with his peers and co-workers Eric Kellogg, Donald Luster, Joseph Letke (deceased), etc. in terms of engineering a much faster rise in government corruption that as collectively taken to new and unexplored heights like the Holiday Inn deal, let alone the water debt devastation that is still washing over the community.

He should certainly take a bow as he leaves the office of Alderman of the City of Harvey, but let us hope there is to be no more encores to come from him as a government official.

But perhaps a sequel of some sort can have some more answers to some of the more serious questions about the behaviors of Keith Price since at least 2007 as an elected official of all of the municipal units he touched…

And helped break.

That’s the Price’s Touch for you–my definition:  “the complete opposite of the Midas Touch on the community of Harvey.”

***If you can prove/demonstrate something is a factual error of a fundamental nature, please feel free to call me at 708-872-0404 and let me know where I can find supporting evidence of your claim.  Please be aware I may or may not make updates to this specific post based on what is shared with me.***

Posted in Advanced Midlothian Politics Special Projects by Valerie, AMP Call For Investigation, AMP Nationwide (USA), AMP Notes on Former Employees, AMP Notes On Former Public Officials, AMP Notes on Public Officials, • 2018 Investigation Watch, • City of Harvey Illinois, • Diversion of Government Assets, • Dominic Egizio (Midlothian Park District Director), • Eric Kellogg (Mayor/President City of Harvey Illinois), • Evelyn Gleason (District 228 Board Member), • Evelyn Gleason (former Park District Executive Director), • Harvey Wall Research, • Local Election Fraud, • Michael Kohlstedt (former Village Clerk), • Michael Kohlstedt (Midlothian Park District President), • Municipal Corruption, • Original Demonstration, • Original Research, • Personal Profiteering For Political Gain, • Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Public Domain Documents, • Reputation Management, • Search Engine Optimization, • Sexual Predators In Government, • Sharon Rybak (former Mayor/President of Midlothian), • Sharon Rybak (Midlothian Park District Finance Director), • Text Talk, • The Double Dipping Profiteering of Michael Kohlstedt, • The Double Dipping Profiteering of Sharon Rybak, • The Hiring Of Dominic Egizio at the Park District, • Thomas Dart (Cook County Sheriff/Public Corruption), • William "Bill" Gleason (former Village Attorney), Entries based on municipal unit, Interference With Basic Needs, Joseph "Joe" Letke, Keith Price (Alderman City of Harvey Illinois), Letke and Associates (accounting), Local Controversies, Midlothian Valerie News Story Coverage, Midlothian Valerie Originals, Midlothian Valerie True Community Policing Demonstrations, Southwest Suburb Highlights, The 2018 Call For A Kellogg Resignation, Valerie's Voice

A Thread Of Light Levity On A Dark Irony Out of the Illinois AG’s Office

***Dedicated to all of the FOIA Officers and Municipal Attorney’s regardless of their political affiliation as they cannot access this information any better than the general public can.  How can someone do their jobs to a consistent standard when they are being obstructed from PUBLIC DOMAIN information that likely would be used in a court of law by a constituent because it ESTABLISHES A STANDARD?  Just sayin’…this starts more legal battles rather than reducing them…***

I don’t know if very many people will catch the irony in this graphic, but Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office oversees complaints against municipalities regarding FOIA and OMA violations.  This office issues binding opinions and has authority to demand cooperation and thus compliance from a municipal unit.

So here I am, clunking along, trying to figure out the best keywords I could use to thin the FOIA keyword herd and I’ve already read a few binding opinions last night coming from Madigan’s office, so I know they are out there.

Here’s the website I went to:

Here’s the irony.

I first was overjoyed at having such a large, thick library of documents to search through.  Surely with so many cataloged so neatly, I would fall upon what I was looking for.

And then I went to go use the search bar.


Search bar?

Yoo hoo!  Are you on the page?


Are you on the site?

Damn.  Not that I can tell.

Damn.  Now I have to once again give Google my click credits and visiting habits of my interest in reading public domain materials that are government related using their “site” search feature, which doesn’t always work well…but then again, neither does Google or any of the other free search engine indexes out there.

Yup!  That’s some “open and honest” transparency…

In favor of delivering Commercial Click Trafficking Profits…

To commercial company that profits off of all of the data it collects, aggregates, etc. should anyone ever want to read any of these documents…

Unless they have a direct link of course.

Then only the AG’s office has a record of the interest in the matter.

“All in all it’s just another brick in the wall” in favor of only government and corporate interests having a say in what it takes to keep the nation safe and secure from all enemies both foreign and domestic…while obstructing the individual from actively participating in the process.

Sigh.  This means the site isn’t even ADA compliant as it is useless to those who are visually or hearing impaired.

And now back to the original thought I was working on.

Posted in Advanced Midlothian Politics Special Projects by Valerie, AMP Nationwide (USA), • Correcting Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Diversion of Government Assets, • End Inequal Access To Justice NOW, • Equal Access To Justice For All Not Some, • Local Election Fraud, • Mining Activities, • Pictures and Graphics, • Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Reputation Management, • Search Engine Optimization, • Text Talk, Entries based on municipal unit, Interference With Basic Needs, Midlothian Valerie News Story Coverage, Midlothian Valerie Originals, Midlothian Valerie Tech Talk, Midlothian Valerie True Community Policing Demonstrations, Valerie's Voice

City of Harvey: Autocrat Rising: Will Keith Price Inherit the Corrupt Kellogg Kingdom?

With street rumors already flying around the City of Harvey that current Harvey Alderman Keith Price has his eye on the Mayor’s seat the next election, it is important for the public to see for themselves how Price has viewed himself when a book of laws is held against his activities for YEARS!

An autocrat is “someone who insists on complete obedience from others; an imperious or domineering person.”  Price makes it quite clear that he not only finds himself above existing laws, he is such the special person, he should get special treatment because as he puts it…he’s serving the entire community of Harvey.

Sound familiar?  It should because it is the playbook that current Mayor Eric Kellogg runs with.  The theme of the book is that only “Special Chosen People” could ever run a government unit the “right” way and that the rest of the world is delusional and sick to think otherwise.  Therefore, all means and methods must be deployed against the public and those that might upset the Dictatorship Kellogg set up.

So if you are looking for a name of someone who directly contributed to the collapse of the City of Harvey and now the Harvey Public Library?

Put the name Keith Price right there at the top of the list.  He had no problem demanding everyone to accept years of his illegal votes in not just one, not just two, not just three, but FOUR municipal units and that we all should dismiss them because he is such the great public servant.

In fact, he even had the audacity to hold onto his Park District seat until 2015…4 YEARS AFTER HE WAS TOLD HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SERVE ON FOUR BOARDS!

Remember.  He has no remorse for his illegal behaviors, thinks everyone else is wrong…including the Cook County Court system…and will stop at nothing to make sure his fake news is spread as far and as wide as possible, such as what he did during the ABC7 interview last night.

Price even dared to blame members of the City Board (which he is a part of) for not passing the tax levy for two years as his explanation as to why the Harvey Library is financially struggling.  That is as fake as fake gets and coming from someone who illegally voted for the library expansion while knowing so intimately the condition of the city and the taxes?  Disgusting. Price wasn’t ignorant of the failed deals of Kellogg with the City.  Price wasn’t ignorant about Joseph Letke and Maggie Britton’s failures as Comptroller and knew they were robbing Peter to pay Paul.  The only difference at City Hall is that Kellogg and his crew have been robbing the public to pay themselves untold riches.

Price’s vote on the library board in favor of an expansion is a major component in what put the library in such a precarious position and I cannot stress enough how important it is to keep this particular truth entirely intact while talking about the library…which is an entirely separate taxing district and thus separate from the City.

He also had no problem taking time out of his busy day to attend the trial of former Alderman Lemont Brown on numerous occasions…probably because he was expecting the law to work the way it was written.  In fact, he was one who was quite furious with the idea that Brown had any right of appeal…and yet Price won’t hesitate to file one.

Agree or disagree with the Brown decision, the results were expected because the law called for it.  Same with the law removing the elected Mayor of Markham on the same grounds recently.

It’s heartbreaking to know that instead of Price abiding by the law and doing right by the people, he cast doubt on all actions and activities of these municipalities while he was a participant on the Board and demanded that the laws not apply to him.

Does the public and the people of Harvey really want yet another leader who will not hesitate to use government resources to defend his actions as Mayor, especially when they are clearly illegal?

All one has to do is look at the legal tab Kellogg has run up so far with all of his corruption…let alone the damages incurred…

Appellate Court of Illinois,First District, Third Division.

The PEOPLE ex rel. Anita ALVAREZ, State’s Attorney of Cook County, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-10-2900.

    Decided: March 16, 2011


Defendant Keith Price appeals an order of the circuit court of Cook County granting summary judgment to the plaintiff People of the State of Illinois on its quo warranto complaint, ousting Price from three public offices. Price argues that the circuit court erred in: (1) granting summary judgment on the State’s amended complaint; (2) granting the State leave to intervene; and (3) denying Price’s motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2008)). We conclude: (1) the conflicting duties of Price’s offices render those offices incompatible; (2) the circuit court properly granted leave to intervene; and (3) the pleading requirements for quo warranto are such that the circuit court properly refused to dismiss the State’s amended complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.1


The record on appeal discloses the following facts. In May 2007, Price assumed the offices of alderman for the sixth ward of Harvey, Illinois, board member of Harvey School District 152, and commissioner of the Harvey Park District, each of which has an elected four-year term. In May 2009, Price assumed the office of Harvey library district board member, which has an elected six-year term.

On March 10, 2010, John Doe, as a Harvey resident and taxpayer, filed a petition sounding in quo warranto. Doe sought Price’s removal from the office of park district commissioner, claiming that the office was incompatible with Price’s position as an alderman. On April 1,2010, with leave of court, Doe filed an amended quo warranto petition, adding Brenda L. Thompson, another Harvey resident and taxpayer, as a petitioner.

On April 13, 2010, the State petitioned the circuit court for leave to intervene and file an amended complaint. The State argued that Doe filed his petition without requesting that the State’s Attorney or Attorney General bring suit, or obtaining their refusal to sue, as required by Illinois law. See 735 ILCS 5/18-102 (West 2008). The State also noted that Doe failed to bring the action in the name of the State, as required by Illinois law. See 735 ILCS 5/18-103 (West 2008). Accordingly, the State sought leave to intervene as a matter of right and file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies in Doe’s filings.

On April 14, 2010, Price filed his appearance and a motion to dismiss Doe’s petition pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2008)), arguing that Doe and Thompson had failed to request the State’s Attorney or Attorney General to bring suit, or to obtain their refusal to sue. On May 24, 2010, following a hearing and argument from the parties on the matter, the circuit court entered an order: (1) granting the State’s petition for leave to intervene and file an amended complaint; and (2) dismissing Doe’s complaint with prejudice. The State filed its amended complaint the same day.

On June 21, 2010, Price filed a motion to dismiss the State’s complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2008)), arguing that the State failed to properly allege that his offices were incompatible. On June 28, 2010, the circuit court denied Price’s. motion to dismiss.

On July 29, 2010, Price filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the State’s complaint, denying any incompatibility in his offices and claiming the action was barred by equitable estoppel and laches.

The same day, the State filed a motion for summary judgment on its amended complaint, seeking to oust Price from his offices as alderman, school board member and park district commissioner. The State argued that the offices of alderman and school board member are incompatible because: (1) a city council may allocate revenue-sharing funds to a school district, while a school board member has the duty to provide revenue to maintain the schools; and (2) a city and school district may contract with each other for property transactions, traffic regulation and fire protection. The State then argued that the offices of alderman and park district commissioner are incompatible because a city and park district may engage in a variety of real estate transactions, including joint and cooperative arrangements. Lastly, the State then argued that the offices of park district commissioner and library district board member are incompatible, again because the two entities may be involved in real estate transactions and projects, particularly in light of the Libraries in Parks Act (75 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 2008)).

On September 1, 2010, Price filed his response to the motion for summary judgment. Price argued that the State failed to allege any facts showing any incompatibility of his offices, or to identify any specific recusal, action or inaction on his part demonstrating an incompatibility of offices. Price also argued that there was no division of loyalty on his part because all of his offices served the citizens of Harvey.

On September 24, 2010, following a hearing and argument on the matter, the circuit court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment, ousting Price from his offices as alderman, school board member and park district commissioner. On September 28, 2010, Price filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.


On appeal, Price argues that the circuit court erred in (1) granting summary judgment on the State’s amended complaint, (2) granting the State leave to intervene, and (3) denying Price’s section 2-615 motion to dismiss. We address Price’s arguments in turn.

I. The Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2008). In a proper case, a quo warranto action may be decided by summary judgment. See People ex rel. Smith v. Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d 1096, 1101-02, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d 306, 310-11 (2005). Appellate review of a summary judgment is de novo. Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 204 Ill.2d 142, 146, 272 Ill.Dec. 600, 787 N.E.2d 786, 789 (2003).

The primary question is whether Price’s offices were incompatible. Public offices are considered incompatible when “the written law of a state specifically prohibits the occupant of either one of the offices in question from holding the other and, also, where the duties of either office are such that the holder of the office cannot in every instance, properly and fully, faithfully perform all the duties of the other office.” (Internal quotation marks omitted .) People v. Claar, 293 Ill.App.3d 211, 215, 227 Ill.Dec. 307, 687 N.E.2d 557, 560 (1997) (quoting People ex rel. Myers v. Haas, 145 Ill.App. 283, 286 (1908)). As this court explained in Claar:

“Incompatibility [of offices] is said to be found in the character of the offices and their relation to each other, in the subordination of the one to the other, and in the nature of the duties and functions which attach to them. In this regard, it has been said that, in determining whether incompatibility exists, the test is incompatibility in the functions or duties of office rather than a mere possibility of a conflict of interest. Offices are generally considered incompatible where such duties and functions are inherently inconsistent and repugnant, so that because of the contrariety and antagonism which would result from the attempt of one person to discharge faithfully, impartially, and efficiently the duties of both offices, considerations of public policy render it improper for an incumbent to retain both.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Claar, 293 Ill.App.3d at 216-17, 227 Ill.Dec. 307, 687 N.E.2d at 560-61 (1997) (quoting 63C Am.Jur.2d Public Officers and Employees § 58 at 501-02 (1997)).

Although the Claar court noted there must be more than a “mere possibility” of a conflict of interest, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled the offices of township assessor and Du Page County board member are incompatible based on the possibility of a conflict of interest. People ex rel. Fitzsimmons v. Swailes, 101 Ill.2d 458, 469, 79 Ill.Dec. 90, 463 N.E.2d 431, 436 (1984). Thus, instead of examining whether there has been an actual conflict in the two offices in which a person is serving, Illinois courts look to whether there will eventually be a Conflict. People ex rel. Barsanti v. Scarpelli, 371 Ill.App.3d 226, 233, 308 Ill.Dec. 647, 862 N.E.2d 245, 251-52 (2007) (and cases cited therein).

For example, in People ex rel. Smith v. Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d 1096, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d 306 (2005), this court addressed whether the positions of alderman and park commissioner are incompatible. This court noted that the Illinois Attorney General had opined that the positions of park district president and municipal alderman were incompatible, reasoning that the statutory contractual relations that may exist between a park district and a municipality would restrict a dual officeholder who “could not fully represent the interest of both governmental units when those units contract with each other.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d at 1099, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d at 308 (quoting 1985 Ill. Att’y Gen. Op. 85-015, at 2-3). The Brown court then cited a number of statutes pursuant to which a park district and a municipality may enter into contracts with one another. Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d at 1099, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d at 309. The court concluded that “the existence of this myriad of possible relationships creates a potential for a conflict of duties that would result in incompatibility of offices.” Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d at 1100, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d at 309; see Scarpelli, 371 Ill.App.3d at 233, 308 Ill.Dec. 647, 862 N.E.2d at 251 (following Brown in analyzing compatibility of township park district commissioner and village trustee offices).

In this case, the circuit court followed the reasoning of Brown and Scarpelli. The State’s motion for summary judgment cited a number of statutes creating the types of relationships between an alderman and a school board member found incompatible in those cases. See 65 ILCS 5/11-45-15 (West 2008) (authorizing municipalities and school districts to contract for the transfer, sale or lease of real property); 105 ILCS 5/10-22.42 (West 2008) (contracting for traffic regulation in parking areas); 65 ILCS 5/11-6-2 (West 2008) (contracting for fire protection). The State also argued that a conflict existed between an alderman’s duties in voting on the allocation of revenue-sharing funds to a school district (30 ILCS 115/3 (West 2008)) and a school board member’s duty to provide revenue to maintain the schools (105 ILCS 5/10-20.3 (West 2008)). See 1985 Ill. Att’y Gen. Op. 85-019. The circuit court relied on the statutes specifically cited in Brown to conclude that the offices of alderman and park district commissioner were incompatible. See Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d at 1099, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d at 309. Similar relationships arise when considering the positions of a park district commissioner and a library district board member. See, e.g., 75 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 2008) (the Libraries in Parks Act).

Price argues that Brown and Scarpelli are distinguishable, because this court considered actual conflicts of interest that resulted in recusals or abstentions in those cases. Price is correct to note that the need for recusal in specific instances is “ ‘compelling proof” that incompatibility exists. Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d at 1100, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d at 309 (quoting Rogers v. Village of Tinley Park, 116 Ill.App.3d 437, 446, 72 Ill.Dec. 1, 451 N.E.2d 1324, 1330 (1983)). However, as noted earlier, incompatibility does not require a showing of an actual conflict. Scarpelli, 371 Ill.App.3d at 233, 308 Ill.Dec. 647, 862 N.E.2d at 251-52 (and cases cited therein). Rather, it is the nature of the duties and functions of the offices that control the analysis.

Price also argues that Brown and Scarpelli are distinguishable, because those cases involved offices serving different constituencies, e.g., county and city or township and village, whereas his offices all serve constituents in Harvey. Neither Brown nor Scarpelli relies on such a distinction. Moreover, the fact that Price’s various offices are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Harvey does not establish a unity of interest. For example, Price offered no evidence or claim that the interests of the sixth ward are always the same as the interests of Harvey School District 152. Price also offered no evidence or claim that lesser bodies like a school district, a park district and a library district do not have competing interests. In sum, Price established no genuine issue of material fact on this issue.

Lastly, Price argues that summary judgment was improper because he raised genuine issues of material fact in his answer and affirmative defenses, particularly the defenses of equitable estoppel and laches, to which the State failed to respond. However, as the State correctly notes, the defenses of laches and estoppel are generally unavailable where an information or complaint in quo warranto is filed by the proper legal officer of the People and the public interest is involved. People ex rel. Phelps v. Kerstein, 413 Ill. 333, 342, 108 N.E.2d 915, 919 (1952). An exception is made for laches, however, if, as a result of inexcusable delay and public acquiescence, a judgment of ouster would result in great public inconvenience and detriment. Scarpelli, 371 Ill.App.3d at 235, 308 Ill.Dec. 647, 862 N.E.2d at 252-253. Price claimed in his defenses that there would be detriment to the public because he had already served in three of his offices for over three years and the public had voted to elect him based on his plans and insight. Yet the Illinois Supreme Court has ousted someone holding dual offices for approximately 12 years. See Swailes, 101 Ill.2d at 469, 79 Ill.Dec. 90, 463 N.E.2d at 436. Moreover, the notion that incompatibility could be defeated by the fact that people voted for the candidate would be an exception swallowing the rule. Generally, this court has considered “great public inconvenience and detriment” in the context of the financial cost to the public and whether personnel or student disruption would take place as the result of an ouster. Scarpelli, 371 Ill.App.3d at 235, 308 Ill.Dec. 647, 862 N.E.2d at 253 (and cases cited therein). Price made no claim of public detriment in these terms, let alone submit evidence on the issue. Moreover, Price’s conclusory denial of compatibility fails for the reasons already stated. Accordingly, Price’s argument fails.

II. The State’s Intervention

Price argues that the circuit court erred in granting the State leave to intervene, because Doe filed his petition without requesting that the State’s Attorney or Attorney General bring suit, or obtaining their refusal to sue, and thus lacked standing to sue on behalf of the State. The purpose of the intervention is to expedite litigation by disposing of the entire controversy among the persons involved in one action to prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits. Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Safaway Steel Products, Inc., 355 Ill.App.3d 1, 7, 290 Ill.Dec. 797, 822 N.E.2d 79, 84 (2004). The intervention statute is remedial in nature and as such, should be construed liberally. Id. Intervention as a matter of right should be allowed upon consideration of issues of timeliness, inadequacy of representation, and sufficiency of interest. Safway, 355 Ill.App.3d at 8, 290 Ill.Dec. 797, 822 N.E.2d at 85. The decision to allow or deny intervention, whether permissive or as of right, is a matter of sound judicial discretion that will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Safway, 355 Ill.App.3d at 7, 290 Ill.Dec. 797, 822 N.E.2d at 84.

Price claims that because Doe and Thompson lacked standing, there was no cause of action pending for intervention by the State. This is incorrect. ‘In Illinois, lack of standing in a civil case is an affirmative defense, which will be forfeited if not raised in a timely fashion in the trial court. Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill.2d 462, 508, 120 Ill.Dec. 531, 524 N.E.2d 561, 582 (1988). Thus, under Illinois law, issues of standing do not implicate the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill.2d 217, 252-53, 341 Ill.Dec. 381, 930 N.E.2d 895, 916 (2010).

In this case, the State moved to intervene before Price filed his motion to dismiss. Properly filed motions should generally be heard and disposed of in the order in which they are filed. In re Dominique F., 145 Ill.2d 311, 324, 164 Ill.Dec. 639, 583 N.E.2d 555, 561 (1991). Moreover, the State sought to intervene as a matter of right for the very reasons Price raised a day later in his motion to dismiss. Price does not argue that the State’s motion was untimely. He agrees that the State is the proper representative and interested party in the matter. The circuit court could consider that had it dismissed the action before deciding the State’s motion to intervene, the likely outcome would have been the State bringing a separate quo warranto action, which runs against the general purpose of intervention. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State leave to intervene in this case.

III. Price’s Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss

Finally, Price argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the State’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code. See 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2008). The State, relying on DuPage Forklift Service, Inc. v. Material Handling Services, Inc., 195 Ill.2d 71, 86, 253 Ill.Dec. 112, 744 N.E.2d 845, 853 (2001), argues that the denial of the section 2-615 motion is an interlocutory order that merges with the judgment for the purposes of appellate review. However, that case addressed the application of collateral estoppel where a federal court entered summary judgment on one count and dismissed a second count, but the relevant parties ultimately settled their dispute by agreeing to dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice. Material Handling Services, Inc., 195 Ill.2d at 82-86, 253 Ill.Dec. 112, 744 N.E.2d at 852-53. In Illinois, a court of review has jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order that constitutes a procedural step in the progression leading to the entry of the final judgment from which an appeal has been taken, Kg., Knapp v. Bulun, 392 Ill.App.3d 1018, 1023, 331 Ill.Dec. 720, 911 N.E.2d 541, 547 (2009). The denial of the motion to dismiss logically precedes the grant of summary judgment because a motion for summary judgment ordinarily assumes, for the purpose of the motion, that the complaint states a legally viable cause of action. Hampton v. Cashmore, 265 Ill.App.3d 23, 25-26, 202 Ill.Dec. 237, 637 N.E.2d 776, 778 (1994). Thus, the denial of the motion to dismiss is reviewable here.

However, the State correctly notes the unique nature of the State’s amended complaint:

“A complaint in quo warranto is not, in the strict sense, a pleading. Following the function of the ancient writ, the complaint is the voice of sovereignty calling upon the defendant to answer by what authority he acts. The plaintiff is not required to either allege or prove any facts. * * * The burden is on the defendant [to disclaim or justify]. If he attempts to justify, he must allege and prove facts which justify his acts. * * * The defendant, not the plaintiff, must, by his answer, tender the issues on which the rights claimed by him are to be litigated.” People ex rel. Ray v. Lewistown Community High School, 388 Ill. 78, 86-87, 57 N.E.2d 486, 491 (1944).

See also People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp., 176 Ill.App.3d 697, 712-13, 126 Ill.Dec. 212, 531 N.E.2d 839, 848 (1988) (following Lewistown Community High School ). Indeed, the provision of the Code governing quo warranto complaints follows the common law, stating that the State “need not set forth the basis of the challenge, but may in general terms allege that the defendant is exercising the claimed right without lawful authority and call upon the defendant to show by what warrant he, she or it exercises it.” 735 ILCS 5/18-103 (West 2008).

Price acknowledges that the complaint may be stated in general terms, but argues that conclusory allegations conflict with this court’s statements in Brown and Scarpelli that incompatibility must be determined on a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d at 1100, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d at 310 (“We view the question before us to be one governed primarily by the specific characteristics of the two offices under review, and the analysis will of necessity be case specific”). Although Price does not mention it, we note that in Claar, this court affirmed the dismissal of a quo warranto complaint “when it merely listed, in a general fashion, the duties of each office and stated conclusorily that the duties conflicted.” Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d at 1101, 293 Ill.Dec. 336, 828 N.E.2d 306 (citing Claar, 293 Ill.App.3d at 217, 227 Ill.Dec. 307, 687 N.E.2d at 561). However, Claar was not called upon to consider the unique pleading standards for quo warranto under statutory and case law, apparently because it was not raised by the parties in that case. The fact that a judicial analysis of incompatibility ultimately turns on the specific characteristics of the offices at issue does not require that the State’s quo warranto complaint detail those characteristics. Moreover, given our ruling that summary judgment was proper, it is apparent that the State could allege and prove incompatibility in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in denying Price’s section 2-615 motion to dismiss.


In sum, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment to the State, The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State leave to intervene. Lastly, the circuit court did not err in denying Price’s section 2-615 motion to dismiss. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.


Justice STEELE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice QUINN and Justice NEVILLE concurred in the judgment and opinion.

Posted in Advanced Midlothian Politics Special Projects by Valerie, AMP Call For Investigation, AMP Nationwide (USA), • 2018 Investigation Watch, • City of Harvey Illinois, • Correcting Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Diversion of Government Assets, • End Inequal Access To Justice NOW, • Equal Access To Justice For All Not Some, • Harvey Wall Research, • Municipal Corruption, • Personal Profiteering For Political Gain, • Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Text Talk, • Thomas Dart (Cook County Sheriff/Public Corruption), Entries based on municipal unit, Keith Price (Alderman City of Harvey Illinois), Local Controversies, Midlothian Valerie News Story Coverage, Midlothian Valerie Originals, Midlothian Valerie True Community Policing Demonstrations, Southwest Suburb Highlights, Valerie's Voice

“Show Me Your Mental Accounting” they cried out in response to L’Heureux criticism

***Artist Accountability Statement***

Okay.  No one actually yelled that sentence out to me over the past couple of days, except for Me, Myself and I inter-yelling among themselves.

And yet, the idea of revealing the thoughts that went into something is nothing new, nor is the phrase “mental accounting” for that matter.

For example, musicians found an additional outlet to express their creativity by using the liners from records or even the booklets frequently found in CD cases as this type of communications platform.  VH1 and its successful “Behind the Music” series was popular because it provided additional insight into what might be hidden inside of the artistry for exactly that purpose.

Now while the term “mental accounting” commonly refers to an economic theory by Richard Thaler that proposes more of a banking method of money, a core component of the theory is the belief that people think of value in relative rather than absolute terms and that they gain pleasure from both the object’s value and the quality of the deal (transaction utility).

That allows for the phrase to cross over into virtually any situation or condition regardless of whether money is a driving factor in the actions.  The story behind the song or a painting is a glimpse at the mental accounting that went into the piece of art.


I’ve been mostly silent about Midlothian matters lately because I’ve gone back into web development and design and work has kept me busy enough to prevent any real time being invested into a composition about Midlothian coming from me.

As I had yesterday and today off, in the morning I decided to catch up on the last two Board meetings and then quickly fire off some notes like I’ve done in the past and maybe a quick story or two about something that happened at the meeting.  Just like the good ol’ days when the Village was a 24/7 on-call endeavor.


Thing didn’t happen exactly the way I originally planned and before I knew it, I was making multiple phone call trying to confirm information and I hadn’t even finished watching the April 25, 2018 video.  In fact, that is how the FOIA request for materials from Attorney Nick Valadez came up.  I had the choice to transcribe his exact words during the meeting so others could read them for themselves…or…

I could go ahead and write a quick FOIA request that would provide me more insight into this claimed “charter” to recommend how to proceed with the VFW Hall land swap deal.  I went with the FOIA request.

There is a much bigger story continuing to unfold in the relationship between the VFW and the Village, but the recommendation was that the VFW Hall deal be rejected and a counter-offer of outright purchasing parking spaces be put together and presented.

Anyway, here I am all morning and some of the afternoon yesterday, cranking out pages upon pages of both typed materials I intended on possibly posting to this blog and handwritten materials to help sort out my thoughts, making calls to ask questions, sending FOIA requests…all in preparation for writing a thorough signature Midlothian Valerie article about the Village and the VFW Hall…

All inspired singularly by what I watched in the April 25, 2018 Board meeting video.

Then I moved onto the May 2, 2018 Board meeting, telling myself I would make note of anything VFW-related and fall back on my original intent of composing and designing notes like what I used to do in the Advanced Midlothian Politics group.

Yeah…sometimes I wonder why I try to plan anything down to the exact detail and timing, as that is simply how the creative process works…you never know what will come into your mind and you are not afraid to explore the unexpected thoughts along with the expected.

Yes, the VFW Hall recommendation is big news.

So was the battle for even the most basic of details being given to a Trustee regarding a project intended on providing Midlothian with a “new” police department.  I use the quotation marks, because no one really knows the site of this proposed construction project from scratch, but its been “confirmed” it can and will be funded with bond money.

By the time I was done with the second video, my head was just reeling at the paradigm shifts I found myself facing, some microscopic, others universe sized.  I knew I was not going to be able to settle my mind down for the night if I didn’t publish anything about what I watched, so I chose to go with my “Don’t Unite Midlothian Party (DUMP)” theme and held Mayor Gary L’Heureux as the main audience member while fully understanding I was about to publish something that was going to be picked up by 100’s of aggregator systems and posted something just to Facebook.

In the meantime, once I posted a satire graphic and put words to it, I decided it was best to call it a day and await today before I clicked the “publish” button again.

So here was the dilemma I put upon myself this morning.  Do I go ahead and leave my rough draft notes intact, publish them and then writing something new…or write something new and leave all of the notes for later?

I decided to go with the first idea, but I wrote something new before I published any notes.  In fact, my critics will be crying “foul” at the number of words that will be found in this blog post, but I decided to keep the entire trail of thought intact so that people could at least get a glimpse into why I chose the words I chose to speak to the Mayor of Midlothian via email.

So this post is broken into three sections.  The first section is a copy of the email I sent to L’Heureux, which is what I wrote over the past few hours.  The next section are my rough draft thoughts after watching the April 25th meeting.  The last section are my rough draft thoughts after watching the May 2nd meeting.  I could have made them separate posts, but wasn’t up for the gamble someone would click a link to read more compared to simply continuing to scroll.

The thing is, the length of this post is nothing compared to what needs to be documented and recorded as it relates to what is going on with the Corporation Known as The Village of Midlothian and perhaps it will be deemed gibberish by the many.

So be it.  People can be quite intimidated by the written word and length alone can scare people away.  I get it.  I’ve always understood it.  I am a niche writer who doesn’t focus on popularity of product in terms of consumption rates and ratios.  I care about getting quality information published no matter how many people do or don’t read it.

In the meantime, lemme go ahead and get this post up as it is a beautiful day and I have errands to run.

*******Section 1 – No FOIA Required:  Email to Mayor Gary L’Heureux********

Dear Mayor Gary L’Heureux,

As I know for a fact the Village under your leadership has a very low tolerance of criticism of any kind, I remain with a confident heart and soul that my intellect continues to remain fully intact and operating well within reasonable bounds as I compose this, let alone click send.

With that said, I feel it my obligation and duty to outright confront you as the Mayor of Midlothian for your horrible display of unprofessionalism and your obligation to the People of Midlothian and not just this list of select people you seem to be operating from.

More to the point, I am horrified you put on public record a false allegation for all to aggregate and draw conclusions from. This shouldn’t be a foreign argument to you coming from me, for you were certainly the recipient of a number of my own complaints to The Village as a Corporation via you being Trustee.

No one implied you should stop talking and how dare you toss out the notion of censure being brought up by anyone in that room on May 3, 2018. In fact, your name hadn’t even been brought into the conversation and then all of a sudden you jump in with this absolute nonsense that someone just called for you to shut up and stay silent.

Let me add my own voice to the matter in that both Trustees were absolutely right about confronting the hiding and cherry-picking judgments of this administration, especially about the matter of the VFW Hall and this new police department. In addition, I myself have been wanting more details about the police department project for a while and while Trustee Crowley was forthcoming when I spoke with her weeks ago, I must say that after watching the video, you completely deny a few realities:

1. The Village does not have a formal and effective tracking system of the condition of all of its tangible property assets, let alone a full inventory of problems needing to be address throughout the asset collection. You played dumb each time the topic of all properties being including in this assessment and recommendation process, but you know this from your time as Trustee.

And yet I, too wish to know exactly why the Village is proceeding blind and deaf to the needs of all else in the Village’s asset collection, let alone any wasted time of the Finance Committee studying the feasibility of a micro-project that does not even have a formal presentation from an actual professional when it comes to “proper” police department design and comes complete with a suggestion of issuing yet another bond, regardless of what it does to the tax base in the immediate. In addition, I was shocked when Trustee Crowley not only implied as fact that she knew for a fact no one on the Board knows how to accomplish this, but the Police Chief does simply because of his field and position.

The Police Chief is no architect, nor has he been exposed to very many police department designs. There has been no statement as to whether or not Delaney has hired anyone to help with this very closed-off development process. She works for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s and would understand perfectly that in a court of law, opposing counsel would have lept up with a cry of “objection” and it would have been sustained because she does not know for fact if anyone on the Board has knowledge or expertise in how to build a police department.

It’s not too hard. Find the right professionals to hire for the job, include input in the development of the complex from ALL MEMBERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PUBLIC, and then the building gets built. If Schavone’s past performance is any indication of letting a former/current Police Chief design anything calling for architecture and planning (and Delaney was trained under him for a bit), then we’re in for a project complete with overrun costs, excessive add-ons that are just not called for and literal design failures, such as the Board room being in non-compliance…STILL!

And yet you sat there and said nothing. You did not correct her by pointing out she cannot make such a statement without facts to back it up, ergo a product of your political engineering habits. You did not point out that a Police Chief simply cannot be the main architect of a police department and that they can only inventory existing problems and create a wish list. Once the wish list is created, IT IS THE BOARD’S OBLIGATION TO PUT IT UP AGAINST EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENTS WISH LIST, something you clearly have no value or use for when it comes to this project about a new police station. That’s what it means to perform due diligence, let alone performing any financial stress tests to see what would happen if X dollars was spent on this new building.

2. The Village had the obligation to do a full and thorough study of all possible solutions to the space issues facing the Village complex and it continues to be made perfectly clear by you and your administration that the Village does not care about using property it already owns and doesn’t use for employee parking so that constituents can park closer to Village Hall (this point was made by a resident during the meeting), nor does it have any interest in working with Metra at all to acquire more parking spaces. Shame on you and your lack of inspiration. You were the hero during the tax hike crisis, being the first voice to oppose it and demanding that the Board be given the last chance to get creative. Now you toss the VFW Hall under the bus because its what…a nuisance and you have no time to care about such trivialities? That’s a label many government officials like throwing around a lot…maybe because it shows up in so many municipal code books…and you allowed this to happen and as a surprise to everyone except for who participated in the “research project.”

In closing, as the word “Stop” coming from me seems to mean “Go” to you and others in your administration, perhaps I should leave this by telling you to go ahead and keep hiding these types of things from the public and treating these people as lesser because its the only way to unite Midlothian. You haven’t been uniting the Board in its entirety. You’ve created a united front for those aligned with your hidden objectives, complete with shut down and shut out of specific Board members.

It certainly fits the pattern of delusions and denials coming out of the Mayor’s office with Midlothian over the past administrations. Remember how Rybak used to avoid notifying you as Trustee of a great number of things?

And in the meantime, as I know it is highly unlikely the Village will be able to comply with my most recent FOIA requests asking for things like phone logs and such, I can’t wait to get blamed by even you for daring to ask for such detailed records that likely don’t exist. That’s been the past habits, hasn’t it? I ask for information that should be virtually no burden to the Village from a logical and fundamental record-keeping perspective and the next thing I know, I have a Mayor pissed off at me for asking in the first place.

The sad thing for me remains that all of these processes should have been put in place over two decades ago and now that you are Mayor, you have shown you have no problem allowing the tradition of sloppy tracking of communications for whatever purposes, especially that of hiding and obscuring things in plain sight, and I can prove it with one final question.

Did you ever follow through and ensure dates, times and initials were put on all building inspection reports, not just CFH materials?

You did say months ago you would look into it…and I haven’t heard anything back from you about the matter.

Last I heard, the department still isn’t properly date/time stamping the documents, but that was a while ago.

I just don’t want to bother the Building Department when you said you’d look into it.

Surely you have a moment of time to explain to me the results of your research project into the matter.

I would like to think that I clearly demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt why such an act was needed, complete with a demo of how easy it is to forge existing building department reports without it, but that was me talking with more of a Community Policing voice than that of a professional administrative assistant.

As I know how to navigate local matters with or without the involvement of the Mayor, I assure you that I am not singular in my opinions about the VFW Hall and the approach to this proposed new police department.

But even if I am the only one to ever go on public record stating I feel this shocked and concerned about your behaviors recently, so be it.

At least I chose not to stay silent about what I watched happen at two Board meetings and I truly believe you need to get a grip and take a hard look in the mirror.
You’ll likely see a blend of the faces of your predecessors rather than your own…if you are truly honest with yourself.

In the meantime, please do not ever speak that way at a Board meeting again. No more straw polls. No more lies. No more misleading reports. No more “My Way Or the Highway” statements. No more singling out Trustees for political target practice. No more tolerance for Trustees attacking one another with such hostility and unprovable facts. No more dividing the Trustees into who is “in the know” and who is left out in the cold for political purposes.

My vote is that this is clearly unbecoming behaviors from the Mayor of Midlothian, the same message I passed along to previous Mayor’s, so its nothing personal.

You just happen to be the Mayor at this time.

I will await your response to my critique and criticism of your behaviors at two public meetings, let alone these topics.

Just be sure to leave any mental health critique out of your comments, especially the ones you say to others.

Just as the Police Chief is not an architect…you are not a mental health professional and my opinion and communication style is not off-kilter by any scale other than that of a subjective political nature…and even then, it is not of an unhealthy nature.

Remember. You know for a fact I wrote even harsher comments and commentary about your predecessor, both in public and via email. And yet you’re the one who chose paranoia and running away while calling for protective cover when confronted with major failures not of the CFH program, even though that was what the published research was about.

The results of my research was an indictment of the entire building department across the board, as many of the failures I caught were systematic and used on all inspection reports. I still back up every single statement made and every single drop of research produced by me.

Won’t it be interesting to see what happens with you being Mayor and no Building Superintendent?

With much regret and sadness,

Midlothian Valerie

******Section 2:  My Personal Rough Draft Notes From Watching the April 25, 2018 Board meeting********

I am extremely disappointed to hear on video that Attorney Valadez consulted with only “some Trustees,” let alone excluding the person who had previously invested hours upon hours of sweat equity and acting as the public face of the deal.

As Valadez is clearly heard stating he was given a “charter” or instructions to evaluate the VFW Hall parking space issue, what is more sickening is the vilification of the actions and activities of VFW-associated individuals while totally absolving the Village of any culpability, which primarily continues to be laziness and lack of inspiration from the person in the Mayor’s seat.

The Metra parking lot has had at least 20 to 30 spots open on a daily basis for years and all nearby the public works building.  I challenge someone to show me one place in meeting minutes where that idea was treated seriously.  Instead its been, “The VFW does this” and “The VFW doesn’t do that” without at least equal outreach to Metra, including the development and initiation of a campaign to acquire the property at any recognizable level.

How dare Valadez exclude any Trustee from discussion prior to bringing it to the Board???  It isn’t even close to the idea of talking with a constituent about an idea or addressing someone at an event or gathering as you tried to accuse Trustees of.  The moment Valadez opened his mouth, he calls upon everyone to give his words credence and credibility and then he goes ahead and admits to excluding members of the Board while including ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS…AND THEN WANTS CREDIBILITY ATTACHED TO HIS RESEARCH AND HIS CONCLUSION????


He serves the Village at the pleasure of the Mayor, sure.  But the key is that he serves The Village in its entirety and not just one individual’s agenda, which is clearly what happened at this meeting.  Instead of sharing this opinion with the Board prior to the meeting, it was decided that it was better to sandbag the few Trustees excluded from the “research” with the “surprise” announcement while making them look inept and lesser in status and stature…as if their voices no longer rank on the Mayor’s Approved List.

What’s not purely political about this stunt?  Maybe Valadez donated his time and money to the Unite Midlothian Party (UMP), but this has been more like the Don’t Unite Midlothian Party, or DUMP for short and Valadez is just another hack “fixer” wanting to act as if his work product is beyond reproach.



Any recommendation by the Village Attorney reflects on the Village in its entirety, no matter how many times Valadez states that the announcement was not made illegally.

His decision to exclude any Trustee was clearly unethical and whoops.

Guess who is the Ethics Advisor.

And guess who carries a large quantity of feedback from the public as it relates to parking issues at Village Hall.

The Trustees.

And they not only gather information from inside of Village Hall, they get it from the public as well.

I smell an Eminent Domain stunt somewhere in the future, which is far more likely than the forward-looking statement of Valadez claiming concerns of having to buy back the property being discussed 10 or 20 years down the road–something that does not necessarily get triggered with a land swap.

Depends on the loopholes Government wants to wander through to get what they clearly want–

And the L’Heureux has sent a clear message to his fellow brothers and sisters in uniform that because the Village wants the VFW property rather than any other option, because he is just as uninspired now to pursue other options as he was lazy while he was Trustee.  Why bother lifting the phone and initiating talks with Metra, let alone any other inspiration yet to unfold.

Including allowing for a misleading report to be released to the public via the Village Attorney.

There’s already talk of a new police station being built…and now the Attorney believes the Village should be outright buying the spaces.

Where is all of this cash going to come from?????

******Section 3:  My Personal Rough Draft Notes From Watching the May 2, 2018 Board meeting********

Careful Mayor L’Heureux:  Your Paranoia Is (s)Peaking Out In Public Again

There are times when a politician is tone deaf and then there are those moments where a very specific sales tactic is used, that of ignoring the concern completely and simply switching topics.

In the May 2, 2018 meeting, Trustee Don Killelea decided to request more details about something that has shown up on at least a handful of agendas, namely that of a new police department.  I myself was barked at by Trustee Carl Ivan when I questioned him recently about where the money was going to come from and proceeded to admonish me for not knowing some loophole in debt collection on suspended licenses was cheating the Village out of money and by bringing this matter in-house, it would be income for the building.

After Ivan made that point at the public gathering we attended (which was actually quite an informative piece of fact…had no idea the State isn’t collecting on those fines), it still rung sour in terms of dollars and cents when it comes to what a “new police department” would look like.

So here I am watching the May 2nd meeting, hoping to glean more details about the project I had seen line-items about, spoken once to Trustee Sandra Crowley about over the phone and then Ivan that one time and its Killelea’s turn.

I’m going to leave out most of the pertinent details of the project at this point, other than it was mentioned that a bond would need to be floated that would not theoretically alter the tax levy to fund the new police department.

Instead, something else happened that really has me thrown hard, and once again very disappointed with Mayor L’Heureux providing coverage for such a contentious and upsetting exchange at a public board meeting.

Killelea wanted to know what the plan was for the police department, including why the efforts weren’t being including in the larger need for inventory of all Village property so that capital improvement decisions can be made in a responsible manner.

Crowley said that an inventory was still being built by Police Chief Daniel Delaney and that research materials had been forwarded to the Board since Crowley started the project.

Killelea wanted to know why the Finance Department would be talking about how to micro-finance one portion of Village property without knowing the condition of all other Village property and then being able to take the department inventory into consideration.

Crowley kept citing that she didn’t understand what Killelea was asking and then out of the blue…

L’Heureux jumps in with the idea that Killelea was telling him he was not allowed to speak to anyone about any ideas.

Fast forward to the 1:01:51 time marker.

L’Heureux takes a straw poll of the Board with the question “Does the rest of the Board agree I shouldn’t talk to people?”

He also doesn’t bother waiting for a response, because technically he is not allowed to call for a vote on something that is not on the agenda, but it sure was a piece of political theatrics worthy of what I am now calling the Distorted Unite Midlothian Beliefs Award or DUMB Award for short.

In this case, the DUMB Award goes to L’Heureux for his contribution to the tension in the room because of some previously unknown paranoia that the words of Killelea should be so summarily dismissed and portrayed as “stupid”…or “dumb,” especially when he is acting as a watchdog and asking excellent questions at a public meeting.  Where the hell did that loopy idea come from because Killelea said nothing of the sort.

My own question to L’Heureux is as follows.  Why would the Finance Committee invest any time in evaluating micro-financing the police department, when it has been the Village’s obligation for years to have a full inventory of Village property and its condition in the first place?

An existing tangible government asset is such a terrible thing to waste…

But you know when the next kicker came in?

At 1:02:16.

L’Heureux brings up for a poll the question “Does the rest of the Board agree that I shouldn’t talk to people, developers, business owners, residents?” and then allowed the Board space to answer.

This act gets him the DUMB Award for Doubling Down.

He was already finished with his first effort and instead of leaving it alone, the public record will now reflect Ivan’s official loyalty being duly noted, while no one else wanted to respond to the illegal polling in response to his poll.  In other words, one voted in favor of the Mayor talking to people and the rest abstained altogether.

This is when he should have walked off the stage into the darkness.

1:02: 26  L’Heureux calls out if there is anyone else.  With a split second pause, he turns directly to Trustee Karen Kreis and singles her out for comment.

This act gets him the DUMB Award for Blatant Political Targeting During a Public Meeting.

It even boomerangs slightly as Kreis reinforces the idea there has been a communications breakdown inside of Village Hall, especially as it relates to the VFW Hall.  Kreis reiterates the wrong approach to informing everyone of Village Attorney Nick Valadez’s recommendations for the first at the meeting itself, rather than documenting it first and at least sending it out to the Board for their review.  It also makes me wonder why it was so important to leave out such critical information from a memo that was distributed about the “mysterious” research.

L’Heureux also gets the DUMB Award For Repeating Irrelevant Information So It Presents An Offensive Posture As Defense.

“But we announced it at the last meeting.”

That’s not L’Heureux being tone deaf.

That’s L’Heureux being paranoid on why his judgment was being so publicly challenged and doing his damndest to ensure some measure of damage control makes it into the meeting minutes.

So if it is known fact that Cambridge Analytica slurped up Facebook data for wrongful aggregation purposes…

Ever wonder who’s been slurping up Midlothian’s meeting minutes and making decisions based on that content?

1:03:36 L’Heureux won his last award of the night.  The DUMB Award For Playing Dumb With the Facts.

Fact.  No one was talking censure and L’Heureux knows it.  He knows exactly what censure is and what types of circumstances calls for it as he was one of many who talked it as an option with former Mayor Sharon Rybak, especially right after the $88,000 discovery.

Fact.  Making the announcement of the Attorney’s wasn’t necessarily illegal, but it was clearly unethical to keep it insider information until the public was informed at the same time.  He is obligated to advise the whole Board of his findings prior to the meeting so that they can have time to think through his recommendation prior to the meeting…not during and after.  He cheated them out of an ability to study the recommendation before it was announced.

Fact.  This research was conducted without the full knowledge and involvement of all of the Board members and it is irrelevant of whether or not Valadez is on retainer or not, while suggesting the matter was thoroughly researched through interviews.

Fact.  This is exactly what former Mayor Sharon Rybak would do when she wanted to avoid accountability for dividing the Village into little pockets of loyalty in her favor for otherwise questionable acts, like when she tried to withhold board packets during the whole tax hike threat thing under Rybak for example.

But instead of L’Heureux being the watchdog this time around.

He’s the conductor, director and lead antagonizer.

Political theatrics create real and perceived wounds.

Everyone who voted for L’Heureux should feel a little wounded by his unprofessional demeanor that was designed to demean and imply another elected official was being dumb on May 2.

We were told and sold on the idea L’Heureux was going to be different.

Different in body, yes.

Different in mind and soul?


He’s the same as the rest of his predecessors.

Posted in Advanced Midlothian Politics Special Projects by Valerie, AMP Call For Investigation, AMP Nationwide (USA), AMP Notes on Public Officials, • 2018 Investigation Watch, • Allen Moskal (Midlothian Village Clerk), • Carl Ivan (Village Trustee), • Correcting Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Daniel Delaney (Police Chief), • Diversion of Government Assets, • Donald "Don" Killelea (Village Trustee), • End Inequal Access To Justice NOW, • Equal Access To Justice For All Not Some, • Erogin Ruff Series, • Gary L'Heureux (Mayor/President of Midlothian), • Jerome "Jerry" Gillis, Jr. (Village Trustee), • Karen Kreis (Village Trustee), • Kathleen "Kathy" Caveney (Village Trustee), • Maggie Britton (Village Treasurer), • Maria Kolacki (Village Deputy Clerk), • Municipal Corruption, • Nick Valadez (Village Attorney), • No FOIA Required Collection, • Personal Profiteering For Political Gain, • Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Public Domain Information Distribution Failures, • Sandy Crowley (Village Trustee), • Text Talk, • Village of Midlothian Illinois (Village Hall), Entries based on municipal unit, Local Controversies, Midlothian Valerie News Story Coverage, Midlothian Valerie Originals, Midlothian Valerie True Community Policing Demonstrations, Repairing Political Rifts Through Reflection, Southwest Suburb Highlights, Valerie's Voice

No FOIA Required: The FOIA for New Police Department Project Information

***This content was sent as a FOIA request to the Village of Midlothian Deputy Clerk Maria Kolacki on Tuesday, May 8, 2018***

Dear Maria,

Trustee Sandy Crowley has gone on public record talking about a project intended to lead to a “new” police department over the past few months, as recently as last week.

I am hereby requesting the following materials in connection with this proposed project:

1. All written communications sent from and received by Trustee Crowley and Police Chief Daniel Delaney discussing this project, including emails and text messages to Village employees and outside individuals.

2. The phone logs of both Crowley and Delaney with the date, time, duration, person spoken to and summary of what was discussed.

3. A list of all dates and times of in-person meetings regarding the project, including any consultations with outside vendors including architects, law enforcement architecture specialists, bond offering possibilities, etc.

4. All Finance Committee meeting minutes and agendas that include this topic as they are not posted to the website, otherwise I’d do this one myself.

You may send me the results of my request via email.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter.

Posted in Advanced Midlothian Politics Special Projects by Valerie, AMP Call For Investigation, AMP Nationwide (USA), AMP Notes on Public Officials, • 2018 Investigation Watch, • Allen Moskal (Midlothian Village Clerk), • Carl Ivan (Village Trustee), • Daniel Delaney (Police Chief), • Diversion of Government Assets, • Donald "Don" Killelea (Village Trustee), • End Inequal Access To Justice NOW, • Equal Access To Justice For All Not Some, • Gary L'Heureux (Mayor/President of Midlothian), • Jerome "Jerry" Gillis, Jr. (Village Trustee), • Karen Kreis (Village Trustee), • Kathleen "Kathy" Caveney (Village Trustee), • Maggie Britton (Village Treasurer), • Nick Valadez (Village Attorney), • No FOIA Required Collection, • Personal Profiteering For Political Gain, • Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Public Domain Documents, • Sandy Crowley (Village Trustee), • Village of Midlothian Illinois (Village Hall), Entries based on municipal unit, Local Controversies, Midlothian Valerie News Story Coverage, Midlothian Valerie True Community Policing Demonstrations, Valerie's Voice

No FOIA Required: Request for identities of secret research project regarding proposed VFW/Village Hall land swap

***This content was sent as a FOIA request to the Village of Midlothian Deputy Clerk Maria Kolacki on Monday, May 7, 2018***

During the April 25, 2018 Village of Midlothian Board meeting, at around the 48 minute marker, Attorney Nick Valadez made a statement as fact that he consulted with “some Trustees and all department heads” about the VFW hall and the parking spaces they own and how it relates to traffic issues, among other problems.

As the work product of Attorney Valadez is not protected by Attorney/Client privilege regarding this particular matter, especially the identities of who specifically he interviewed as part of his research, I wish to FOIA request all copies of all communications pertaining to this admitted research performed by Attorney Valadez pertaining to this VFW matter, including but not limited to:

  1. Log of all phone calls made and received by Attorney Valadez, including date, time and duration regarding the topic, both Village employees and all other individuals, including individuals with the VFW
  2. Copies of all emails and/or text messages, including date and time stamp of sent materials
  3. List of people interviewed, dates, times and duration of interview
  4. List of questions asked of the people interviewed and what control measures were in place to ensure no bias in presenting the questions to any/all of those interviewed
  5. Evidence of who instructed Valadez to perform the research in the first place, what was the scope of the research and what time frame was put to the research

As I cannot get to Village Hall easily, please go ahead and email me the information.

Thank you in advance with this matter.

Posted in Advanced Midlothian Politics Special Projects by Valerie, AMP Call For Investigation, AMP Nationwide (USA), AMP Notes on Public Officials, • Allen Moskal (Midlothian Village Clerk), • Carl Ivan (Village Trustee), • Correcting Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Donald "Don" Killelea (Village Trustee), • Gary L'Heureux (Mayor/President of Midlothian), • Jerome "Jerry" Gillis, Jr. (Village Trustee), • Karen Kreis (Village Trustee), • Kathleen "Kathy" Caveney (Village Trustee), • Maria Kolacki (Village Deputy Clerk), • Nick Valadez (Village Attorney), • No FOIA Required Collection, • Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Sandy Crowley (Village Trustee), • Village of Midlothian Illinois (Village Hall), • William "Billy" DeSimone (Building Superintendent), Entries based on municipal unit, Local Controversies, Midlothian Valerie News Story Coverage, Repairing Political Rifts Through Reflection

No FOIA Required: The FOIA for the DeSimone Exit Checklist

***This content was sent as a FOIA request to the Village of Midlothian Deputy Clerk Maria Kolacki on Saturday, May 5, 2018***

A few years ago, the Board went through a rough period of time regarding the hiring and firing of a government employee at all levels except an elected position.

During this series of conversations, both at public meetings and in public, one of the more shocking revelations was that the Village was completely lacking a Final Severance Checklist, so-to-speak.  Employees left on insurance rosters, locks to Village Hall not changed, passwords not changed were but a few of the issues that demanded prompt corrective actions.

As the firing of William DeSimone last week is the first time a department head was let go under this new administration, imagine my surprise when people in the employment of the Village had no clue Mr. DeSimone was let go.

As it is possible some did not receive the email notifying everyone at the Village Mr. DeSimone was no longer in the employment of the Village, I thought it best to first FOIA request a copy of the email notification of his dismissal as well as a copy of the checklist used to finalize his employment.

While the Village might want to keep the reasons behind his dismissal unknown, the public has the right to demand line item proof that the Village has promptly and thoroughly taken all the necessary steps to end the relationship is not something that can be withheld as there is nothing secret about providing confirmation of:

  • Immediate notification to all Village employees
  • Immediately notify all employees affected who they report to until the position is filled
  • Who inspected what was removed from Village Hall and if anything was not allowed to leave the premises
  • Surrendering of keys
  • Surrendering of ID’s
  • Surrendering of uniforms
  • Surrendering of Village equipment (including car, magnetic signage for car, phone, computers, pagers, technology, etc.)
  • Removal from the website directory
  • Removal from the phone system
  • Removal from all letterhead, forms, etc.
  • Termination of benefits

My only concern is that I am once again asking for a document that simply doesn’t exist, thus suggesting an inability for the Village to fulfill my request—(which raises other issues, such as what has happened with past employees being let go) but no formal internal document is not sufficient grounds for refusal to fulfill my request.

Therefore, even if the Village does not have a formal checklist, the list I have provided above will work just fine as long as dates, times and the person signing off on the task is attached to each line item.  In addition, please send a copy of the Village-wide email sent notifying all employees of Mr. DeSimone’s dismissal.  As I cannot get to Village Hall any time soon, I would appreciate the results via email.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter.


Midlothian Valerie

Posted in Advanced Midlothian Politics Special Projects by Valerie, AMP Call For Investigation, AMP Nationwide (USA), AMP Notes On Former Public Officials, AMP Notes on Public Officials, • Allen Moskal (Midlothian Village Clerk), • Correcting Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Erogin Ruff Series, • Gary L'Heureux (Mayor/President of Midlothian), • Maria Kolacki (Village Deputy Clerk), • No FOIA Required Collection, • Problem Behaviors From Public Officials, • Public Domain Documents, • Text Talk, • Village of Midlothian Illinois (Village Hall), • William "Billy" DeSimone (Building Superintendent), Entries based on municipal unit, Midlothian Valerie Audits and Exams, Midlothian Valerie News Story Coverage, Midlothian Valerie Originals, Midlothian Valerie True Community Policing Demonstrations, Valerie's Voice