Wednesday, January 19, 2011

NWH smears Bianchi (again)

Reporters write stories; editors write headlines. At least, so I was told in the not-to-distant past by a reporter for the Northwest Herald.

Did you see today's top headline (Page 1, upper right): "County picks up Bianchi's latest bill"?

As anyone around here with half a brain already knows, it is not Bianchi's bill that Judge Gordon Graham is sending to the County Board for payment. And which the County Board is rolling over on and paying after huffing and puffing (and then approving 18-1).

Tina Hill, District 5, got it right when she said, "The taxpayers of McHenry County are not a bottomless pit", either just before or just after she voted with the other 17 to approve the latest bill, $112,938.

And it wasn't Bianchi's bill that they approved. It was Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan's bill. Now his firm and he will have been paid $221,476, and Tonigan hasn't.even billed yet for September, October, November and December 2010. Tonigan's monthly average for June-August was $37,646; if that continues, then the County Board will get socked for another $150,000 ($37,646x4), bringing the total through December 31, 2010, to $371,500.

That's a pretty good deal when you are working for a government, isn't it? You get a $100,000 allowance; blow through it; spend $371,500, and get that!!!

About halfway through the article, I thought, "Maybe McHenry County should have a special prosecutor to investigate the special prosecutor." And then I read that that is exactly what Nick Provenzano had said. Was that during the County Board meeting or after?

Is Sandra Salgado the only County Board member with any common sense? Thanks, Sandra, for standing up for the People of McHenry County.

Did Tonigan just write out another "Pay Me" slip for Judge Graham's signature and hand it over the judge's desk? What would happen if the County Board refused to honor the blank check given by Judge Graham to Henry Tonigan? Is the County Board really under court order to pay? Was there a hearing where the County Board defended itself against Tonigan's claim? Or against Judge Graham's order? Does Judge Graham really have the authority to order the County to pay money it has not authorized?

Why do I doubt this? And why is the County Board paying without a fight?

10 comments:

bill Matteson said...

this is the primary reason I canceled my subscription.
bill

DirtyNed said...

Gus Opined “Is Sandra Salgado the only County Board member with any common sense? Thanks, Sandra, for standing up for the People of McHenry County”

Sandra Salgado, daughter of Bianchi’s right hand man, also known as the “God Father” is her father. She should recuse herself and not vote on issues regarding the SAO. Her father is front and center in the allegations against the Bianchi and the SAO. Huge conflict of interests!

Gus said...

Ned, a wise man once told me that it is much better to say "I wish I could say you are right" than to tell a man that he is wrong.

So, I wish I could say you are right.

But Seriously said...

Gus, Are you saying that Ned is factually wrong or just wrong in his opinion that elected officials should recuse themselves from casting votes involving criminal investigations when immediate family members are involved? Asking herself to recuse her self would seem fair in the situation.

Gus said...

It seems to me that last night's vote was whether to pay Tonigan's bill as ordered by Judge Graham. No reason for Sandra to recuse herself on that. Should the County Board pay a judge's order for a legal bill with no detail as to work done, hours worked, worked by unnamed associates or unnamed contracted firms? No, No, NO! But 17 didn't have a problem with it, and 6 didn't show up to vote.

But Seriously said...

I could see the public pressuring the Judge who reviewed the bill and who entered the order ensure he was reviewing detail (Of course for all we know he has)...However to vote to openly disobey a legal court order is simply irresponsible. To vote to act in a way that would be in contempt of the court in a case involving an immediate family member is deeply troubling.

Additionally, I don't believe Bianchi or his crowd pushed for detailed open billing when he sent his special prosecutor after the whistleblower...so once again it seems he set a precedent in the county that has been turned against him and us in a similar way.

Gus said...

But Seriously, suppose Special Prosecutor Tonigan went to Judge Graham with this Order for his signature, "Now comes the Special Prosecutor to respectfully pray for the Court to order But Seriously to pay $112,000 for non-specific legal services." Suppose Judge Graham signed it. Would that make it legal?

The point is that I don't know of any court date when both sides argued the merits and amounts of Sp. Pros. Tonigan's billings, before Judge Graham ordered payment.

DirtyNed said...

Gus,
You are starting to weasle and wiggle. I think "But Seriously" made a great point. Sandra voted a family line. Her useless stonewalling to slow the process isn't going to save her dad. I speculate that when all is said and done, Ron will be in very hot water. Right now its just very uncomforably warm, but they are turning up the heat.

If it were funds to investigate Nygren, you'd pay without any question.

Steve said...

Seems to me that the reason all the details are left out of the judge's order just MIGHT be because the request for payment contains detail that would identify persons to whom the prosecutor and investigators have spoken with. To identify witnesses or potential witnesses to the grand jury proceedings would not be smart. I don't believe for a minute that the judge - or anyone else - involved believes for second that this Tonigan is just handing in a bill that says, in effect, "you owe me (or I want) $112,938! You don't need to know what I did to earn it!" That scenario may play better to your scenario, Gus, but your way isn't the real world. Then again, from all accounts, Bianchi's office isn't real either.

Gus said...

Steve, would you believe it for 30 seconds? Start with that, and read Tonigan's previous handwritten "Order", requesting payment.

Of course, names of witnesses could be redacted.

But not the names of attorneys whose time is being billed, dates of time billings, number of hours and minutes billed, miles traveled, meals eaten, and the same with billings from contracted firms, like the office full of retired FBI agents.

Perhaps you have never seen a detailed billing from a law firm that claimed unbelievable daily billings. The ARDC cracked down and will no longer tolerate billings only in one-hour increments. Should a 31-minute phone call get rounded up to 1.0 hour (at $400/hour)?