More cost to taxpayers

On July 19, 2009, an arbitrator in the case of Zane Seipler’s termination from the McHenry County Sheriff Department by incumbent sheriff Keith Nygren ruled that Seipler should not have been fired. Instead, an appropriate discipline would have been three days off without pay. The arbitrator awarded Seipler all back pay, except for three days.

Deputy Seipler should be back at work now and have a year’s pay in the bank.

Is he and does he? No, and no.

Sheriff Nygren had his lawyer, John H. Kelly, file a Motion with the arbitrator, in effect telling the arbitrator that he hadn’t made the right decision and asking him to make a new decision in the Sheriff’s favor. That took 9 ¼ pages.

I’ll have to remember this, the next time I’m in court. Just let the judge make a decision, and then write him a letter and tell him he made the wrong decision and to change it.

Seipler’s attorney claimed 1) the arbitrator had no authority to change his award; 2) the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to reconsider his award; and 3) the Sheriff’s arguments were without merit. That took 3 ½ pages.

The arbitrator ruled that he didn’t have jurisdiction to change the award. That took one page.

How much did that adventure by the sheriff cost the taxpayers?

Northwest Herald reporter Jill Duchnowski wrote (Paragraph 2) on December 9 that "Nygren is appealing it" (the back pay award and reinstatement). Later in the article (fourth paragraph from the end) she wrote that "Nygren has said he planned to appeal the arbitrator's decision in McHenry County Circuit Court."

If Jill hears comments correctly, Nygren must have said to her that he "is appealing it." That would mean the appeal has been filed, which it has not.

If the second statement by the reporter is correct, then the sheriff is "planning" to appeal the arbitrator's decision. Planning to appeal it and actually appealing it are two entirely different things. He may have only until mid-January to actually file any appeal. That date will be just a couple of weeks before the February 2 Primary Election.

That decision is very likely to influence voters in the Republican Primary on February 2. It looks like a lose/lose situation for the sheriff. If he files an appeal, voters (taxpayers) will be incensed at the waste of money. If he doesn't appeal and puts Seipler back to work (and pays him more than a year's pay for the time he could have been working), voters (taxpayers) will still be incensed.