Sangamon Co. (ECWd) –
During our first Village of Chatham City Council meeting, I pointed out problems with the initial agreement between the Village and the South Sangamon Water Commission. Specifically, I pointed out three statutorily mandated items that must appear on the document that did not. I covered those matters in this article.
We specifically were seeking to know the fixed maximum amount of the Village’s share of the cost it proposes to pay, to advance or to obligate itself for, and the period over which it proposes to pay its obligation (not exceeding 5 years) and the maximum amount to be paid annually.
During the July 12, 2016, meeting, John Kraft asked a question regarding those specific items and referenced them as being part of the Bond issue with the Village instead of the original agreement between the Village and SSWC.
During the meeting, it was made clear that the Village of Chatham had not sold any bonds related to the SSWC. That point is what I believe was the trigger that led to the Interim Village Manager Patrick McCarthy opening his mouth and claiming the reason he had not answered our questions on the above-mentioned issue is because the Village had not sold any bonds.
Suggestion for McCarthy:
- Don’t open your mouth if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
- When you are foolish enough to open your mouth when you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s best not to fabricate a response, commonly referred to as lying.
- Learn to listen to the citizens you are supposed to be serving, as it’s possible, more often than you think, they might just know something you don’t.
Sadly for fabricator McCarthy, his effort of sounding important and providing some kind of response to Mr. Kraft’s comment backfired on multiple fronts.
For starters, my original question on the matter made no reference to any bonds and had nothing to do with bond sales by the Village. That being the case, for McCarthy to take a position that he did not respond to our question because the Village had not sold bonds, is clearly a lie. A lie in which I called him out on it during the meeting. Once called out on it, he admitted his response was not correct. So what happens when he lies to others that don’t know the facts or are naive enough to think the Interim City Manager would not lie to them? His response appeared to be an attempt to sound important by having some kind of answer, but more importantly it reflects a behavioral trait that has no place in public office.
Anytime a public official is willing to fabricate a response to the public it exposes a behavioral flaw. That flaw is their willingness to lie and misrepresent instead of being honest and transparent like the attorney was on this matter. An Interim city manager who is willing to fabricate a response to a member of the public should be removed from his post for cause.
This country is facing more distrust with their public officials than at any time in recent history, and it’s people like Patrick McCarthy that fuel that distrust by lying to the public. We believe the right thing to do would be to terminate him for clear willingness to lie about matters. If he is willing to lie about a simple question on an agreement from 2009, what else does he lie about?
We captured the key video clips of this chain of events below.
The entire video can be viewed at this link.
Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
janniePosted at 07:29h, 19 July
I suppose one could chalk this up to being new 🙂
But officials if they don’t know should just keep quiet or state – I’ll find out of the answer. In circumstances in our area I have been told outright falsehoods, then finding out when I researched for myself they were false statements.
This goes on in many other counties.