Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

April 24, 2024

Iroquois County – Emergency Telephone System Board- What did they miss?

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On March 31, 2017

Iroquois Co. (ECWd) –

The now voided employment contract with their 911 Coordinator brings us to the need to expose the lack of oversite by the ETSB (the board) as it relates to certain obligations that were in the contract, yet never fulfilled, as well as the failures under that contract. In addition, looking at certain expense reimbursements we find some questionable figures the current ETSB may want to inquire about.

The contract, found at this link, contained certain items that Nita Dubble, the 911 Coordinator was required to perform. One of the things we have found with public employee contracts is the fact those in charge of oversite have no clue what is in the contract, and never hold those employed accountable to the contract they signed.

Keep in mind, this particular contract was brought to the table by Nita Dubble, so it’s not out of line to expect the items she placed in the contract to be complied with.

  • Communications shall include but not be limited fo attendance at all BOARD meetings (unless otherwise directed) and submission to the BOARD of monthly and annual written reports on the status of the 9-1-1 System.

Turns out, no written reports have ever been submitted, thus one of the few obligations she had were not complied with.  The response we received was a claim; “Verbal reports presented at ETSB meetings to satisfaction of board”.

We appreciate a claim that verbal reports were presented monthly and annually, however, that is not what the contract required. It specifically stated those reports would be submitted to the board in the form of written reports.  So all those so quick to claim superior job performance, maybe you should ask why the most basic obligations she listed in her contract were never followed.

As this relates to the ETSB, why didn’t they do their job during this period to ensure compliance with the contract?

The contract outlines her salary to be $26.91 an hour and she was expected to work 40 hrs a week.  So how does one provide oversite to an hourly wage agreement?  Time cards are the norm but in this case, no time cards were used by the contracted employee.   Thus, no oversite by the ETSB to ensure contracted obligations are met.

The Contract also outlines mandatory performance evaluations to be done by the Board.  The evaluations provided, however, do not reflect the Board did the evaluation but instead one or two people.  The last evaluation claims she is the champion behind the safety tax referendum that is on the ballot.

Lastly, a quick review of the expenses reimbursed to Nita Dubble raises some flags as it relates to mileage. How can two trips to Springfield net $335.80 while other trips to the same location equate to $181.70, which would equate to $363.40 for two trips.  This is a case of the math not adding up.  One line item reflects total miles for Springfield travel to be 316 miles.  That entry is consistent with the first entry, representing the same mileage to the same location.  The confusion comes with the multiple meetings line entry that reported a payment of $335.80, which only reflects 584 miles.  With a round trip total being 316 miles on two entries, two trips would be 632 miles, or $363.40.  How is it that we have a 48 miles difference with entries to the same location?

All the math aside, we have asked for the mileage logs which should have been provided to support this expense reimbursement.  We will report on those once they are returned, assuming any such logs exist.

image name


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • Tony Bologna
    Posted at 12:34h, 31 March

    we have asked for the mileage logs which should have been provided to support this expense reimbursement. We will report on those once they are returned, assuming any such logs exist.


    You betcha, I’m sure they gots ALL them red tape reports in order. There might be a brief delay for processing so I hope you remember to keep us posted as soon as they get their act together and deliver the goods!

  • wonderer
    Posted at 08:14h, 01 April

    One only has to look at the Law. How many laws were violated? While those who wear blinders say what a wonderful job she has done, look at the facts. Nita told the county board several years ago there would always be plenty of money. She then decided to give all new radios to the fire districts, money ran out,then she bullied them into paying “dispatch Fees” or 911 will only call a phone # and they will have to dispatch there own responders.( in violation of the law) She paid workers comp for many years while the county paid the same bill. No money returned! She paid insurance premiums on things the county had on their master policy. No refunds. She tried to make the townships pay dispatch fees as well, she even sent an amount that each was going to pay. She was ask at the meeting what law allowed her to collect the money and that was the END of her attempt to bully even more!
    Do you know why there is FOP for Sergeants and Lt in the sheriffs office.( they were not union) Former sheriff agreed to allow after Nita received a pay increase of almost double her salary.( now a forever cost).Tens of thousands of dollars was paid to an attorney when the law says the states attorney is the legal rep of 911.Your tax dollars wasted ! NITA only looked to benefit herself.

    • caseih 2388
      Posted at 18:57h, 04 April

      I’m not professing to be either pro or anti Nita, but we need to have the facts straight, and they certainly are not. I was a fireman when the “radios” were given to the fire departments. The 911 system was about to come on line and the firemen were to be notified of whatever emergency by pager. Most of the fire departments didn’t have pagers and had little money to purchase them at $500 each. The 911 BOARD,

      • caseih 2388
        Posted at 19:07h, 04 April

        (I hit the wrong key and posted too soon) to continue, decided to allocate a certain amount of money to help the departments purchase pagers or whatever else was needed to make the system work. As far as the dispatch fee, Rod Copas, the then county board chairman proposed that solution to the fund crisis and the county board approved it. Nita does not have the power to impose any of this on the fire departments or anyone else. The 911 board (or ETSB or Joint Dispatch, whatever the name) hired the lawyer that was later determined to be improper. After it was clarified as to the proper legal procedure he was gone. It was a case of ignorance, not purposeful unlawfulness. And the 911 board are the ones that set Nita’s salary. Pick on them if you wish. But there is only one of those original ones left on the 911 (ETSB) board now. I just want the facts straight, because the above comment is not correct in most aspects.

    • caseih 2388
      Posted at 19:18h, 04 April

      I’m curious as in what instance the 911 center would dispatch to a township. Fire departments and police and ambulance I can see, but why would they dispatch Sheldon Twp., or Concord Twp., or Ash Grove Twp., or Prairie Green Twp., or Beaver Twp. And the list goes on and on. There has to be some misinformation here. The insurance mix-ups were often because there was no one in county government that had a good handle on what was going on. After the county hired a financial expert to oversee the finances things improved immensely.

  • spill the beans
    Posted at 10:26h, 01 April

    There was a coverup when the director was the victim of a domestic assault with her boyfriend, put her in the hospital, no reports no charges, oh yes he was on the 911 board as well. How did that go unnoticed? and he remained on the board after the abuse! Control not Justice is the answer.