Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

May 19, 2024

Illinois – If you are wondering…

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On October 13, 2016

Illinois (ECWd) –

For those that may be wondering how bad things are in this state, grab a cup of coffee and try to relax and digest the information I was just provided regarding the termination of a State Employee.

Yes or No, “Have you ever pled guilty to or been convicted of a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?”

Does ANYONE not understand that question?  If you have ever pled guilty of a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation you will mark YES on such a question.  If you have been convicted of a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation you would mark YES.

Marking NO would be a lie under the example provided.

What do you suppose the person’s position was on their attempt to defend his lies on the application, which we first exposed here, which later led to a termination shared in this story.

“The employer has failed to define reasonable and clear guidelines of what is a conviction “other than a minor traffic violation.” ”

“Neither HFS policy nor CMS rules define “other than a minor traffic violation.”

“Central Management Services (CMS), Healthcare and Family Services (HFS), and the CMS 100 are silent on defining “other than a minor traffic violation” and therefore created a situation where responses and interpretations are based on opinions and thus become subjective and not impartial.”

“Illinois Department of Central Management Services Deputy General Counsel Jeffrey Shuck told investigators from the Office of Executive Inspector General (OEIG) that there were no CMS written definition of the term and “it would have been helpful to have a formal definition.” Additionally, Mr. Shuck told investigators that CMS does not maintain a list of employment disqualifying offenses, nor did he have knowledge of any state agency that did.
By CMS not reasonably and clearly defining “other than a minor traffic violation” it allowed for subjective responses exposing employees to unfair and non-objective scrutiny.”

“I answered the question honestly and truthfully.”

No, you did not answer honestly.  You lied!  You pled guilty to a criminal offense that was not a minor traffic violation.  We are not that stupid, yet the money spent defending you and investigating your lies is why our state is in the mess it is in!

As if the terminated employee comments are not bad enough, The Union comments are just as disturbing to the common citizen of this state who knows when straight up manipulation of common sense is applied to defend a liar with a badge.

“This prolonged investigation of Mr. Hilgers that lasted approximately one year, and is concluded on subjective criteria. Nor is the report of investigation timely and HFS has established a practice in the recent past of not seeking disciplinary action as a result. In summary, there is no established policy that defines a reasonable guideline for the objective definition of “other than a minor traffic violation.” Mr. Hilgers answered the question truthfully on his CMS 100 application.”

“At the time Mr. Hilgers completed the CMS 100 on December 3, 2007, he had pled guilty to car less and imprudent operation of a watercraft in the State of Missouri, a Class B misdemeanor. In perspective, if he had been convicted of littering in Missouri he would have been guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $1000.00 and imprisonment up to one year. Mr. Hilgers completed the CMS 100 appropriately and continues as a long-term employee who performs his job duties in a professional manner. The union believes no discipline should be imposed and that Mr. Hilgers remain in his assignment for which he is qualified.”

Read the document for yourself and you can see first hand how twisted our society has become when it ignores the fact the employee was convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic violation and attempts to justify the conviction by selecting another law that has a greater penalty.  The selection of the littering law is nothing more than an attempt to whitewash the crime committed by the state employee.  Couple that with the fact it took a year to get the matter resolved for only ONE state employee, is it any wonder it is next to impossible to fix anything in Illinois?

We are pleased to see he eventually got terminated but the work that goes into holding these people accountable must be streamlined in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayers of Illinois.  This is a perfect example as to why so many are pointing to Unions as a major problem in our State.   We have some great people working in our State Government, however, we must stop defending bad actors just because they are in the Union.  It is killing this state and most people understand that fact.

[gview file=””]


Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
[wp_eStore_donate id=1]


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • Eric Pratt
    Posted at 11:45h, 14 October

    Could not agree more. It’s an insult to need to respond to obvious attempts to shift blame, and yet that is often how many liars work their way into an organization and stay there. It is a huge drain on the time and resources of those organizations, and in the meantime what useful work is done? We are compelled to use our time and resources getting rid of one impostor after another. It is frustrating.

  • Jack T
    Posted at 20:05h, 14 October

    Ok, so let’s play devil’s advocate here, Kirk. Define “minor”. The application doesn’t. Is “minor” less serious than littering? Evidently, in Missouri, drunk boating is less serious than littering. Keep in mind that in Illinois, speeding can be a class B misdemeanor. Define “traffic.” the application doesn’t. Does it only mean what takes place on highways? What about streets? What about riding a 4 wheeler in the woods? Huh? How different is that than watercraft? The real problem here is sloppy drafting of regulations. Can’t blame an employee for trying to save his own butt or a lawyer for doing his job.