City of Chicago

College of DuPage – Glaser & O’Rourke – Grant riddled with problems – Part II

DuPage Co. (ECWd)

Two words that appear to be evading key people working with or for the College of DuPage.

  • Truth“that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.”
  • Honestyfreedom from deceit or fraud.”

James O’Rourke might have some explaining to do when it comes to applying those two basic words.  The reason being, when you sign your name on a letter with claims you are going to do certain things, one expects such claims to be true and honest.  Sadly, in this case we find that Mr. O’Rourke’s written words are neither truthful nor honest and such a determination can be made by his own writings.

O’Rourke’s claim from his December 2013 letter to COD: I will provide you or your designee monthly reports regarding the progress of the project and a final wrap up report by April 15, 2014.”  (Click here for copy of the letter)

O’Rourke’s attempt at providing cover for not having any work product from either Grant project was exposed in our last article at this link.  Note that he now claims his reports are “informal verbal reports”: “it was decided to render informal verbal reports periodically to Bauer and COD.Who made that decision?

Giving him the benefit of doubt we will use his words and prove that they were neither true or honest.  He claimed he would provide monthly reports and a final wrap up report by April 15th.  Since he has acknowledged such reports were “informal verbal reports”, let’s look at his “Close out Report” letter he sent to COD after being put on notice that such a document “MUST” be filed for these projects.  (Click here for the close-out letter)

He now has a new spin!

“As stated in my June 15, 2015 letter only verbal reports and updates were used in the $25,000 grant. Neither the COD nor Bauer commented upon this reporting methodology. This rep0rting will not change the reporting protocol. However, the narrative to follow will provide a concise account of the excellent outcome actually achieved in the $25,000 grant and in the first phase of the now terminated $57,000 grant.”

He now justifies not providing written reports with a claim that since neither COD or Bauer commented upon verbal reporting it is somehow justified to not provide a written report. Forget the fact he assured COD that he would provide monthly reports and a final report to this project.  To date, no monthly reports or final report of any kind have been found, which means Mr. O’Rourke was neither truthful nor honest in his letter to COD.

One major problem Mr. O’Rourke has in this paper trail is a letter from Glaser to the Foundation wanting O’Rourke hired for this grant.  That letter outlines a most interesting claim. “Mr. O‘Routke has indicated that he will work to include 1-2 College of  DuPage students in the study, as well as share the results of the study with our faculty so that it could be used in their classes if desired”.  (Click here for copy of the letter)

How do you share the results of a study with faculty that could be used in their classes if such reports are informal verbal reports?

The close out report does not reflect a single report of any kind for the first $25,000.00 Grant.  In fact, I challenge anyone to find evidence to support his claim that “the narrative to follow will provide a concise account of the excellent outcome actually achieved in the $25,000 grant”. (Click here for the close-out letter)

Everything referenced in the close out letter applies to the second grant, and as you can see, there is nothing in his letter that provides a concise account of the outcome achieved for either grant. In fact, it fails to make a single reference to any achievement, unless getting to meet with Chief Judge Evans constitutes an achievement.

 Need more convincing? 

“In this regard, several meetings were scheduled and held with Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans. These meetings were attended by Bauer Foundation representatives and myself.”  (Click here for the close-out letter)

Several – “more than two but not many.”

On June 9th, 2014, O’Rourke claimed he met with Chief Judge Evans.  Over a year later, June 15th, 2015, he reports to have met with Chief Judge Evans.

O’Rourke’s own close out letter confirms there were only two meetings with Chief Judge Evans, thus there were not several meetings with the Chief Judge.

Another disturbing aspect of his comments in the close out letter is the claim the meetings he had with the Chief Judge were attended by him and Bauer Foundation Representatives.  I find that odd that there was no mention of any COD students involved in those meetings but even more concerning is why the Bauer Foundation was at those meetings considering they said they could not hire Mr. O’Rourke because of the type of Foundation they operate.  They cannot hire him, but they can work with him on the project?  Does that make any sense to anyone?

Was this entire Grant scheme simply a method for O’Rourke to find himself a job in the Court system? 

  • “The proposal, now endorsed by Judge Evans, is essentially to work directly with Judge Evans to recreate and staff the Cook County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council model including the critical operation of the Principals Committee.”
  • “The June 16, 2014 Proposal calls for a one year commitment after which the court would assume funding responsibility.”
  • I would be available to serve as staff to the Coordinating Council for at least the first year of operation, provided my services would prove useful to the Court.”

(Click here for documents pointing to employment hopes by O’Rourke)

By all indications to date, claims made by Mr. O’Rourke have been less than truthful and lack the honesty that most would expect from a practicing attorney.

Part III to be presented shortly.

 

Leave a witty comment