Edgar Co., IL. (ECWd) -
Karl Farnham came up with some pretty good excuses, the problem is they are not true.
Well, one thing was true, that a lawsuit would have been filed if Sheriff Wood would have been reappointed to the ETSB board.
Other than that, everything else is false. Farnham was quoted as saying "the vast majority of county residents" feel the sheriff was a good asset to the ETS Board - which we know to be false, since it cannot be proven to be how the "vast majority" felt about it when Farnham made the statement. He obviously doesn't care about a unanimous vote of the county board saying they are not authorized health insurance - but he now makes a false claim about how the "vast majority" of county residents feel about the ETSB members?
We have submitted a request for records to support the statement about how a "vast majority" of the county residents feel - but we already know there is no such proof to be had.
"The AG Opinion was non-binding" - wow. What a fool he is for that statement. It is well-known the AG opinion was written as a legal opinion, and that a binding opinion was never requested from the AG, which is duty bound to provide legal advice to the States Attorney when asked, which they did. Are we to believe Karl knows more than all the attorneys at the AG's Office, since he then stated he believed there was no conflict with the Sheriff on the ETS Board?
"He's only voting on money controlled by his department, not personally" was the next quote by Farnham. Why did Farnham change the story line now? The last articles written quoted him and the 911 Coordinator saying something completely different about how the money was controlled. The fact is, Farnham's statement is one reason it makes it a conflict; the sheriff was voting on "money controlled by his department"...while serving on the board of another department (votes on the amount of compensation to provide to his other department)...meaning he could not give impartial faithful service to both, no matter how much he thinks he could.
Farnahm is one of the same board members that didn't think disgraced former Chairman Chris Patrick selling concrete to the county was a conflict. We all know how that turned out for him.
Farnham is the same board member that when exposed for selling guns illegally during his time as Sheriff responded with "its past the statute of limitations", which basically was an admission with no regard for the fact it was illegal, other than he can't be held accountable for it now.
Well prior to the actual re-appointments to the 911 Board, Kirk Allen provided a simple solution to the Sheriff sitting on the 911 board being a conflict. County Board Chairman Voigt was told they could still have the same input from the county sheriff even if he was not on the board. Sure, he wouldn't be allowed to vote on things, but if what the ETSB honestly wants is input, they can have that without the sheriff being on the board and serving in a conflicted position as is clearly pointed out by the Attorney General.
Previous article from us on this subject Sep 21 - Sep 21 - Oct 29