College of DuPage

COD – Official Misconduct by President Breuder?

College of DuPage – DuPage Co. (ECWd) –

Official misconduct has 4 prongs of which any single one, if proven, constitutes Official Misconduct. Specifically, “A public officer or employee or special government agent commits misconduct when, in his official capacity or capacity as a special government agent, he commits any of the following acts”:
(a) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law; or
(b) Knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by law to perform; or
(c) With intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority; or
(d) Solicits or knowingly accepts for the performance of any act a fee or reward which he knows is not authorized by law.

The Illinois State Constitution outlines under Article VIII Section 1 that Public “funds”, “property” , or “credit” shall be used only for public purpose.  Violation of this law has consistently carried the felony weight of Official Misconduct.

We covered the clear violation of use of public funds by the President, Dr. Breuder, in a previous article.  (Click here for that article).  That article outlined what appears to be an orchestrated event with more than one person involved that involved the use of Public Funds for private purpose.  I referenced the satellite phone scandal in that article and this article will make the case so that all can understand the abuse that is taking place with the peoples money.

Credit card statements received from a Freedom of Information request reflected charges that appear to have nothing to do with public business.  Additional requests for receipts and approvals of some of these purchases proved very disturbing.

Specifically, I will only cover the satellite phone matter in this article however all can see there are charges on the statements that do not have a public purpose.  (Click here for credit card statements for Dr. Breuder)

The Globalcom charges to a Texas based firm is what jumped out as a questionable charge because that business is a satellite phone company. These types of phones are used by many avid hunters when hunting in areas in which cell phone service is limited if existent at all.  They are also commonly used by businesses for the same reasons.

Can anyone provide any legal authority for Dr. Breuder to rent satellite phones, three years running?  There is nothing in the Community College Act that authorizes it nor is there any COD policy that reflects such a rental is necessary for COD business.

In fact, a FOIA for approval of these rentals came back with no documents responsive to my request.  (Click here for the FOIA request and the response provided by COD).  That means that the board never approved such rentals.  More disturbing, if that’s possible, is the fact that the board created a policy that authorized the use of credit cards by personnel for the efficient procurement of goods and services.  The problem is the Community College act only authorizes credit cards for Board Members who request them in writing.  (110 ILCS 805/3-7e)

"The board of each community college district may adopt a policy providing for the issuance of bank credit cards, for use by any board member who requests the same in writing and agrees to use the card only for the reasonable expenses which he or she incurs in connection with his or her service as a board member"

The policy created by the board is not supported by law and is a violation of the law!  More on that in another article as we want to focus on one violation at a time.

Dr. Breuder used Public “credit” to purchase the satellite phone rental packages. He had those phones delivered to an address in Barrington, as supported by Fed-Ex tracking numbers on the invoices.  The college paid those invoices so we now also have use of Public “Funds” confirmed.

What possible public purpose do these phone rentals have?  The best anyone has come up with is that the President needed to stay in touch with the school or the school with him while he traveled overseas.    That “might” be applicable however we are not talking about a single phone.  We are talking multiple phones.  It has been insinuated they were used on his hunting trips.  I suspect that is the case considering the time frame they were rented falls into the window of the hunting seasons in Africa however where he used them has no bearing on the facts.

  • Dr. Breuder used Public Credit to purchase items that have no public purpose.
  • Public Funds were used to pay the credit card bill that contained the charges by Dr. Breuder.
  • He had no approval from the Board to purchase satellite phone rental packages.
  • There is no authority within the Community College Act that permits such a purchase.

I believe a first year law graduate could make the case for Official Misconduct under section b and c of that statute as well as under Article VIII section 1 of our Illinois State Constitution (ISC).

  • (b) Knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by law to perform; or
  • (c) With intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority
  • ISC – Article VIII Section 1 that Public “funds”, “property” , or “credit” shall be used only for public purpose.

Dr. Breuder knows he is forbidden by law to use public funds for private purpose.  If he claims otherwise then he has no business as a College President.

The use of public credit outlined as well as public funds to pay that credit card bill was done for what appears to be nothing more than an opportunity to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another and was done in excess of his lawful authority. The advantage is by not having to pay for the merchandise used by himself and/or others.

Oh, almost forgot!  The credit card payments were handled under the secret account known as Imprest.  You know, the ones the board never got to look at, other than the Chairman, Erin Birt, from what I understand!

The people who utilize COD for its intended purpose deserve accountability and maybe when enough light is shined on the actions of a few things will get better for everyone.

At what point will board members or citizens demand accountability to the law?  Are criminal charges the next step? Can anyone provide sound reason why these actions should not be prosecuted if proven true?

We The People – What does it really mean?

Leave a witty comment