EDGAR CO. (ECWd) –
That old adage of liar, liar, pants on fire, comes to mind the more Mr. Patrick speaks. As past articles have pointed out, Mr. Patrick likes to play word games and in many cases outright lie about things. I have no clue why, but it appears he doesn’t think anyone is going to follow up on his false claims during public meetings.
Specifically, during the County Board Highway meeting and Study Session yesterday, Mr. Patrick made numerous comments of which several are outright fabrications and others a clear twisting of other peoples words in an effort to support his own position. Sadly, again, facts prove Mr. Patrick is not being honest with the public!
“State’s Attorney finally says there’s no Conflict of Interest, that was the answer I got as of last Tuesday.”
Mr. Isaf did not state there is NO conflict of interest. He stated, “I don’t think Mr. Patrick has a conflict of interest at this point based upon the information that I have received. That doesn’t mean one can’t develop but that’s true of any of us. The current issue to my understanding is that IDOT is interpreting the recusal letter of Mr. Patrick differently than he and I do. IDOT/Mr. Crowe has frozen funds based upon its decision. Until I clarify things with IDOT to understand what decisions have been made based upon what fact pattern, I’m not sure what the board expects as far as a recommendation. The one with the purse strings has already decided. If it is unmoving in its decision, right or wrong, the ball will be in Mr. Patrick’s Court.”
So no Mr. Patrick your blanket claim that Mr. Isaf said there is NO Conflict of Interest claim is clearly not true and members of the board called you out on that fact during the meeting, and it’s clear listening to your mumbling trying to read the email that you know your original statement doesn’t hold water.
Even more disturbing is the qualifier by Mr. Isaf. “based upon the information that I have received”. One must ask, what information has he received? I have yet to speak to a single county board member that has taken one shred of documentation to Mr. Isaf that clearly points to the Conflict of Interest, and I would bet Money that Mr. Patrick has never provided that information either. So if Mr. Isaf has received nothing from anyone, what else is he to conclude.
Mr. Patrick you may be able to manipulate things for a while, but the truth has no agenda and it is coming out faster than you like, and it’s clear based on all the evidence provided to IDOT there is a Conflict and they are so sure of it that they have in fact frozen funds to this county and it is now in fact in writing, which if I recall was something you were demanding to be provided to you during the last County Board Meeting.
Lastly, as it relates to Mr. Isaf’s comment in his email, does anyone else find it disturbing that a well documented conflict of interest by Mr. Patrick puts the ball in his court? I don’t know what that is supposed to mean but I would think a State’s Attorney who has the job to seek justice and enforce our laws would take the ball, but then again we are in Edgar County.
“IDOT did not want to respond”
Email history from IDOT proves that statement to be a total lie. In fact, records prove that Deputy Chief Counsel Lance Jones provided dates to meet with Mr. Isaf back in February. Due to the Murder trial Mr. Isaf has been involved in there was a delay but I understand additional dates have been provided for them to meet since the trial is over.
So again, the claim that IDOT wont respond is totally false!
“That’s the official word from the State’s Attorney, No Conflict of Interest.”
Again, total fabrication of what he wants people to think and clearly not what Mr. Isaf said as pointed out above.
“They wont respond to Mark’s Email and phone calls.”
Another fabrication and the emails shared at the very meeting Mr. Patrick made that comment prove his statement to be a total fabrication! As far as phone calls not being returned, I have no way of confirming that yet but we are working on it. A FOIA for the phone records will be quite interesting to say the least.
“They said they were busy and couldn’t do anything.”
Yet another fabrication and again the emails shared at the very meeting Mr. Patrick stated this, proves this statement to be a total fabrication as those emails reflected dates to meet between the Deputy Chief Counsel and Mr. Isaf. If they were to busy and couldn’t do anything then why are they setting up dates to meet?
“They have ignored 4 letters and requests.”
I asked for the copies of the letters Mr. Patrick referenced as being ignored. One of them is from Craig Smith and as I pointed out, IDOT has no obligation to respond to his private attorney and I know I wouldn’t if I were in their shoes either. When I asked for the other 3 letters Mr. Patrick refused to tell us what letters he was talking about. I suspect the FOIA response from the county is going to be there are no other letters. If there were, why keep it secret from the rest of the board Mr. Patrick? My FOIA from IDOT has confirmed the only letter sent was the letter from Craig Smith, so clearly someone is lying.
It’s pretty clear, based on the information shared at this meeting and correspondence we have from IDOT that they are clearly convinced there is a conflict of interest with Mr. Patrick and his Zimmerly Ready Mix operation. In fact, at least 4 County Board members have expressed in private with me that they agree there is a clear conflict and Mr. Patrick should resign. A couple think he should be charged with official misconduct for his actions, which I concur.
So there is absolutely no confusion, IDOT has stated there is a Conflict of Interest and a hold has been placed on all agreements and plans that include Federal or state funds! You see now, as I pointed out, this Conflict issue is not just a matter of a recusal letter pertaining to compliance with the Federal laws, but a much more stringent state law that conveniently Mr. Isaf, Craig Smith, and Mr. Patrick keep ignoring in their correspondence.
From IDOT: “I have spoken with Joe Crowe, Deputy Director of Highways – Region Three Engineer, and at this time the District has put a hold on approving all agreements and plans that include federal or state funds until the County’s State’s Attorney has met with the Department’s Office of Chief Council to address the Conflict of Interest Issue.”
Address the Conflict of Interest Issue?
How do you address a conflict of interest?
You Remove it!
How do you remove it?
Three options:
- Resign
- NEVER sell materials to the County (he has already refused to agree to this and in fact informed everyone he fully intends to sell materials on county projects)
- Criminal Prosecution
“You can’t base your decision on “what ifs”!”
Totally agree Mr. Patrick, so let’s base it on the facts of action that have already taken place.
- Your were C0unty Airport Chairman for 25 years
- You billed the Airport via Zimmerly Ready Mix for over $7,000.00 of invoices and not a single motion or approval of those orders and/or payments can be found in airport minutes.
- You were sworn in on December 3rd of 2012 as County Board Member and appointed as Chairman.
- In your first month of public service you violated the law and sold materials to the county and billed the county and got paid.
- As confirmed by IDOT, you violated your own recusal letter the day after you signed it.
What If Mr. Patrick actually did all 5 of the items listed?
What If?
No What If to it! It’s clear he has done all things outlined and it’s even clearer that the people of Edgar County are tired of the word games Mr. Patrick, not to mention IDOT agrees as well. If they didn’t, the funds for this county would not be frozen.
For what its worth, I believe Mr. Patrick has in fact violated the law willfully and knowingly and should be charged accordingly by the State’s Attorney. I don’t expect that to happen, as it appears Mr. Isaf already punted this to Craig Smith and as long as Smith is directing opinions, nothing is going to change. I pray he proves me wrong!
Mr. Patrick, RESIGN!
Listen to this portion of the audio here.
1 Comment
Parisian
Posted at 10:14h, 13 MarchAs a concerned citizens, I (and others) have been wondering about a few What If’s as well.
If projects that the Watchdogs have previously posted as having funding in jeopardy, start actually losing funding and EITHER cost the county money (as in the required sign upgrades that the County would have to pay for if the grant falls through) OR cause local businesses to lose money because the work that had previously been there is not available as a direct result of the funding being pulled(i.e. local trucking companies) then do the Citizens or the Businesses have a basis to file a lawsuit against CP and/or the County?
Or suppose a project is put out for bid and was waiting to be awarded but since the funds are being withheld, and some of the grants are dependent upon getting the projects started before a certain date, the project ends up not happening. Does the low bidder have a valid basis to file a lawsuit against CP and/or the County?
Or here’s another one…I’m sure some of these projects that are to have the money from IDOT used on them will keep some County Highway workers employed. If the funding is pulled then are the employees laid off? Would a County employee who is laid off as a direct result of this have a basis to file a lawsuit against CP and/or the County?