911 Board » Edgar County Board » feature

Edgar County Board Study Session 10-6-2014 –

October 7, 2014   ·   0 Comments

image_pdfimage_print

EDGAR CO. (ECWd) –

There were several issues discussed during the Board’s study session this week, and among those were:

– During the public comment section, I repeated my call for correction of the “Note 12” from a couple of years ago. This “Note” in the audit wrongfully claimed that Mr. Dee Burgin has paid the county the $100,000 purchase price for the ambulance service and that he owed nothing to the county. I will do whatever it takes to correct that lie, even if it means going through the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation department to file grievance against the license of those individuals responsible. This move is to correct the history of the county, and to ensure that he never ever runs for a county office unless he pays the county what he owes the county. A previous article from Feb. 2014 (here) and the county board admitting, a week later, that the auditors admitted it was not a correct statement in the audit (here).

– More talk about moving the 9-11 dispatchers under control of the ETSB Board and Nannette Crippes. I think it is a mistake and hopefully the board will do its due diligence in researching this issue prior to any changes. What they should do is enforce the original agreement, that is still binding, and place Nannette Crippes back under the Sheriff’s Department, and move her office back over to where it was in the beginning. It was the choice of the ETSB and their director to move into the basement of the courthouse – costing the county taxpayers several thousands of dollars in the process.

– Then we get to the levy for the ambulance service and the board still being upset because they failed to read the prior contract. Now that it renewed because they failed to provide proper notice according to the previous contract provisions, they want to screw the service providers out of money, claiming another provider would have done it for a lesser amount. What they fail to tell everyone is that the other provider’s bid proposal did not meet the minimum requirements of the contract and could never have been granted. This is simply more personal agendas of board members, instead of doing what is right.

 

 

By

Readers Comments (0)





Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.