Can't be true!!! Leist has an MCSD car?

A commenter on McHenry County Blog posted the following comment to Cal's article that Jim Harrison is already throwing his hat in the ring for the November 2014 election for McHenry County Sheriff.

"ZS Supporter says:
08/02/2012 at 10:46 am
"(Jim Harrison's) Publicly saying he would get rid of Leist and the EEO position is a great start.

"Reduce the budget and pension responsibilities in one stroke, freeing up $90,000 a year and a company car. (According to sources Leist is driving a Mercedes that was seized in a drug raid.)..."

What's that? EEO "officer" Don Leist has got a take-home car? And it's a Mercedes?"

1. What does Don Leist need a take-home car for? He is a civilian employee of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department. He rides a desk all day. He won't ever have to turn out in the middle of the night for an emergency call. He's an office employee, a paper-pusher. Why in the world would he ever have a take-home car?

2. Why would he ever get a take-home car that was a vehicle seized in a drug raid?

Aren't those vehicles supposed to be used in dedicated service? In very restricted use, since they were, in effect, confiscated? Like maybe as undercover cars to catch more drug dealers?

Is this what Sheriff Nygren and Undersheriff Zinke are condoning?

I'll tell you what we need up here in McHenry County. We need that 27-year-old newspaper editor from Covington, Kentucky (she is in Oregon now) and that 20-year-old college student to come up here and sharpen their teeth on what is going on at our sheriff's department!

Why no police report?

One of the Northwest Herald news articles about the July 1st double-fatality auto crash on Davis Road described a contact that a Woodstock police officer had with the boys shortly before the 2:00am crash.

Two 16-year-old Woodstock High School boys were driving around in the family car of one of the boys. Neither had a license that was valid early that Sunday morning. Graduated Driver's Licenses have restricted hours, and the holder of such a license is not to be driving between 11:00PM Saturday and 6:00AM Sunday, if he is just driving around.

The officer reportedly asked the boys if they were old enough to smoke, according to the newspaper article, and the article mentioned that the boys had just switched positions in the car and that the boy who was not related to the owner of the car was behind the wheel.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Woodstock Police Department, the FOIA officer said that no documents responsive to my request were found. I could not imagine that there would not be a written report, and I requested a more diligent search. The same answer was received today.

I cannot imagine circumstances under which an officer would not make a written report on a contact with two boys who died in a single-car crash minutes after speaking with the officer. While the officer might not have made a report (he should have made Contact cards on both boys) immediately after a seemingly unimportant contact, as soon as he learned of the crash, he should have filed a complete report about his contact with them.

There are numerous reasons for this, not the least of which is that the City could end up squarely in the middle of a lawsuit. For this reason it should be well-documented exactly what the contact consisted of.

Was it just a "casual" contact? When an officer speaks with two young teenagers between 1-2:00AM, there is nothing "casual" about it. If he had reason to ask them anything about smoking, he should have asked for identification. Why did he think they might be smoking? As it turned out, one boy had three IDs on him that were not his. Two belonged to an older brother, and a third had a completely different name on it.

Had the officer checked IDs and understood that a Graduated Driver's License didn't allow either to drive (and so how did they plan to leave where they were and get home, and get that car home?), then he could at least have summoned the parents to pick up the car and the boys. And they'd probably both be alive today.

If this police contact occurred (and I have no reason to think that a reporter would write about it, if it hadn't), then the police chief should immediately direct the officer and his supervisor to account for that report. If a lawsuit is filed three years from now, it'll be too late then to write the report.

Watch this life-saving video

This is a video the city of Houston put together on what to do, should you (a citizen) run across an active shooter, such as the guy in the movie theater. They were just finishing it when the Colorado shootings occurred. It is well worth the watch and worth sharing with your family and friends.

The important thing is to have a plan, whether at work, at home, on the street or in your vehicle.

Send a foursome to Murder Park

Recently I wrote (somewhere) that I thought three influential (in their own minds, at least) men in Chicago ought to pay a visit to "Murder Park" in south Chicago some Saturday night. You know ... go and see for themselves what all the hubbub is about. Why are so many people getting killed there?

Oh, and go without police escort... Whom did I suggest? Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel, The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Fr. Pfleger.

Now I'd like to suggest a fourth. Add Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and just make it a foursome. Oh, and still no bodyguards. No swarm of Illinois State Police troopers. Just the four guys. You know ... Men's Night Out.

Why add Quinn? He earned fourth place with his stupid, knee-jerk reaction to the Colorado shooting massacre by gutting an ammunition sales bill of Illinois Senator David Leuchtefeld (R-58 (District office in Okawville, Ill.)). Quinn wants to prohibit the manufacture, delivery, sale and possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons", according to an anti-gun Associate Press reporter, Sophia Tareen.

Quinn must not even understand what an "assault" weapon is. Or perhaps he, like many in Illinois, wish to think that just because a rifle looks like an assault (fully-automatic) rifle, then it is one.

Some reporter in a different article thought he was making a big deal that James Holmes had a weapon that he could fire 50-60 times/minute. Heck, I've got a weapon I can fire 50-60 times/minute, if I have enough spare, loaded clips and can reload fast enough. Holmes did not have an "assault" weapon; he had a semi-automatic weapon that was an assault-style weapon.

But maybe it's a good idea for Emanuel, Quinn, Jackson and Pfleger not to go to Murder Park. The criminals with the illegally-possessed guns might go crazier and pop off some rounds at those guys, instead of picking on the kids in the 'hood.

By the way, where's Okawville? Off I-64, halfway between St. Louis and Mt. Vernon.

Is it SB3521 that Quinn gutted? If so, it may that the Senate Bill isn't going anywhere, anyway. Sen. Leuchtefeld was the original and the only sponsor of the Bill. En Garde, Gentlemen!

Wyatt case continued to Aug. 29

After a short hearing today, in which brief oral arguments were made on a Motion to Dismiss, the case of Jenn Wyatt was continued to August 29.

Kim Messer, Assistant Public Defender for Wyatt, argued that the charges, as filed, did not meet the statute's requirements. Michael Combs, Assistant State's Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division, argued that it did.

The statute (720 ILCS 5/31-4) reads, in part:
    Sec. 31-4. Obstructing justice.
    A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly commits any of the following acts:
    (a) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information; or ..."

Here's the problem: The case of Beth Bentley is a Missing Person case. No one in authority has ever asserted that a crime has been committed. No one has been named a suspect in over two years since Beth disappeared. No one has been even named a "person-of-interest".

So anything that Jenn might have told the Woodstock Police cannot obstruct justice with intent to prevent the apprehension of any person. There is no "person". She cannot have obstructed the prosecution of any person, because no person has ever been named. Likewise, she cannot have obstructed the defense of any person. Again, there is no "person".

Did she furnish false information? First you have to prevent or obstruct; then the means of so doing come into play in this statute.

If there is no "person", then doesn't everything else fail?

Judge Condon gave himself four weeks to ponder this issue. All will be back in court on Wednesday, August 29, 9:00AM, in Courtroom 302.

Thanks to Miss Messer for speaking up. She speaks loudly, clearly and confidently at the bench. I could hear what she was saying.

I could hear most of what Mr. Combs said; not all.

And I could hear very little of what Judge Condon said. I had to wait until court recessed to ask what his ruling was in this case.

Sheriff's Merit Comm. meeting - canceled (again)

The August 9th meeting of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Commission meeting has already been canceled. Today is just August 1, but the sheriff apparently does not intend to take the matter of Sgt. Pyle's paid administrative leave to the Commission in August.

This means, in effect, that Pyle collects another $7,000 in pay, while he continues on paid status after his felony arrest in January.

It also means that the Merit Commission will not discuss the complaint filed with the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor (PAC) over the Commission chairman's (chairperson's) prohibition against non-disruptive photography at the June meeting. On June 25th the PAC wrote to Janelle Crowley, Commissioner of the Merit Commission (she happens to be the long-time chairperson) and advised her that "further inquiry is warranted" and that the Commission had seven working days after receipt of that letter to respond.

I received my copy of the June 25th letter on June 28th. Perhaps the Commissioner received her copy also on June 28th. That put the deadline at July 10 for the Commissioner's response to be mailed to the PAC. The PAC should have received it by July 12.

Since Illinois Statutes allow photography during open meetings of public bodies, I imagine the Merit Commission will get its collective hands slapped for the second time. The first time was when they illegally held a monthly meeting by telephone, with no one present in the meeting room. All Commissioners were to complete training about the Open Meetings Act, but not one of the other commissioners challenged their chairperson about the legitimacy of her order to me not to take pictures.

Would they look like they weren't team players, if they stood up to her? Or would the sheriff get mad at them for respecting the laws of Illinois?

No fees. Whose home?

The following email was received early this morning.

Notice the date on it - June 7, 2012, when it was sent to the "Tips" line at the Northwest Herald. I don't recall seeing any story in the Northwest Herald. Do you?

This home was originally a seven-room home, with two bedrooms and two baths, according to the permit application in the property file at Woodstock City Hall. This home was listed for sale in 2012 as a ten-room home with four bedrooms and three baths, and a finished basement.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why, as of July 20, there wasn't an application for a Permit in the City's file for this property that reflected these additions, along with calculation of the Permit Fees and the Impact Fees, and the required Certificate of Occupancy after the necessary inspections of electrical and plumbing work. The fees could total $8,000 or more.

On Friday, July 27, I emailed Mayor Sager about this problem. In three business days he has not replied.

How many City employees knew about these improvements? Were some of those employees required to act, but didn't?

The property went under contract on June 7 and sold on July 16, 2012. Who gets stuck with the fees now? The new owner? And who gets stuck for the plumbing and electrical inspections? Will walls have to be opened to inspect the installations of wiring and piping? Was a contractor involved? Did the contractor do work, knowing no permits had been issued? If a contractor was involved, who was it?

The following email is quoted in its entirety:

Subject:     Woodstock City Manager Home on market with extra 1300 square feet
Date:     Thu, 07 Jun 2012 02:53:20 -0700
From:     Gov Watch <woodstockgovwatch@gmail.com>
To:     tips@nwherald.com

What has the City Manager of Woodstock been able to enjoy that you may
not? A finished basement.

What reasons might a person not put in a finished basement? Perhaps it
is the permit fees or the increase in taxes, but Tim Clifton need not
worry about that! He doesn't need permits like the regular folks of
Woodstock.  He can have his former head of Community Development, Derik
Morefield, over for their annual directors dinner and not worry about
questions about how his basement added two rooms to his home. Perhaps
the building inspectors has stopped by, but does he dare ask who
performed the plumbing work in the new bathroom?

What could you do with an additional 1300 square feet of finished basement?

Here is his home listing:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1341-Winslow-Cir_Woodstock_IL_60098_M83097-61141

Attached are the building permits for this same property:

This is a ridiculous oversight by a City Manager that had money thrown
at him to stay in Woodstock and makes a salary on par with the Governor
of the State.

Sources:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-08-25/news/0208250439_1_crystal-lake-city-manager-pay

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Illinois_state_government_salary#cite_note-4

http://www.woodstockil.gov/
END