Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

May 25, 2024

Clark County Park Board Evades Question From County Board –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On September 19, 2014


It is simply amazing the things people will say to push their personal agendas when it comes to the Clark County Park District Board.

During the Clark County Board meeting this morning, the new interim director of the park district was presenting the plans for leasing lots for county board approval of the plat plan. A county board member asked her if this plan of theirs violated the original agreement set forth when the park district was originally formed. The answer he received? “No, because our board approved it.” Why didn’t she simply say something like “Some people think so, but we found an attorney that agreed with us so we approve it at a meeting“? It would have been a whole lot closer to the truth.

Just for the record here, the original agreement set forth that the property was to be use solely for public recreational purposes – not for private home sites. The park board fished around and finally found an attorney that would give them the opinion they were looking for, then they voted to move forward with the project at their own meeting.

What is fascinating about this is they are now lying about the impact of leasing the lots and the violations of the original binding agreement. Just because a board approves something does not mean it is legal, correct, or enforceable, it simply means the board approved it – and the attorney’s opinion is just that, his opinion. The attorney will never sign their name pledging its truth nor will an attorney issue a warranty that their opinion is correct.

The Clark County State’s Attorney stated the situation correctly, that this is something the court will end up deciding and the board is only there to approve the plat if it is in compliance with the Plat Act – whether it is lawful to lease the property or not is not a decision of the County Board. I suppose the county board could end up with more votes against it than for it, after all, they cannot force any board member to vote a certain way.



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • ECWDogs
    Posted at 15:21h, 19 September Reply

    Clark County Park Board Evades Question From County Board –

  • Dave L.
    Posted at 15:33h, 19 September Reply

    “MANAGE AND PRESERVE THE NATURAL RESOURCES”……these words appear in the Clark County Park Districts Mission Statement, from the day the district was formed. Developing/selling/leasing land within the 2600 acres of Mill Creek Park flies in the face of these very words. These guys should be ashamed of themselves! Especially Ron Stone and Terry Stepp…….disgraceful!

  • Theodore P. Hartke, PE, PLS, President, Hartke Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
    Posted at 23:02h, 19 September Reply

    If an Illinois Professional Land Surveyor has knowledge that their client, or potential client, is developing a project which is likely to be “illegal” or “non-conforming” to a previous agreement or deed or is based upon some unethical board action, I would think that our ethics training would kick into high gear. As a Past President of the Illinois Professional Land Surveyors Association, I wouldn’t set foot on this project.

    I think that the Illinois Surveying Licensing Board might have something to say to a surveyor who “knowingly associates with or permits the use of the land surveyor’s name or firm name in a business venture by any person or firm the land surveyor knows, or has reason to believe, is engaging in business or professional practices of a fraudulent or dishonest nature.”

    I wonder which surveyor is willing to put his license on the line to assist this group in doing something which appears to be inherently wrong.

  • Kirk Allen
    Posted at 07:19h, 20 September Reply

    The company referenced in the meeting was Francis & Associates. Bob Colvin is a surveyor so I suspect your question has been answered!

  • Warren J. Le Fever
    Posted at 16:09h, 20 September Reply

    I attended the County Board meeting in this article and recorded it and the statements are exactly correct. I have high respect for this county board and the question posed by the member is legit. The States Attorney got it right. I am wondering if this land is that which was taken by eminent domain to gain possession for the “public good”. Now it’s for private home sites? Some of the original landowners weren’t exactly happy with what happened to them. Mostly they are dead and gone now just like the Indians. There’s no reason for the County Board to do anything except determine if it is in compliance with the Plat Act and that’s if the Board wants to.

Post A Comment