McHenry Co. (ECWd) –
As we continue to wait for the clerk to comply with our Freedom of Information Act request we continue to identify major concerns through other venues of obtaining records she appears to not want us to have.
The used street sweeper getting so much attention lately turns out was sold claiming a certain statute gave Algonquin Township Road District the authority to sell it and Village of Island Lake the authority to buy it.
We contend this is another example to be used for the firing of the attorney who drafted the Intergovernmental Agreement for them.
From the IGA that Clerk LuKasik has yet to provide:
WHEREAS, Seller has the authority to sell the Asset pursuant to Illinois law,
with specific reference to 605 ILCS 5/6-201.10; and
WHEREAS, Buyer has the authority to buy the Asset pursuant to Illinois law,
with specific reference to 605 ILCS 5/6-201.10;
We will provide 1 free dinner for a family of 4 at any location in McHenry County if they can find one word in the statute they cited, 605 ILCS 5/6-201.10, that gives them the power to sell or buy equipment from each other!
Now we’re not saying the local government can’t enter into IGA’s or buy and sell equipment to each other as they clearly can. We are just saying the nimrod attorney that drafted this IGA cited a statute that has no reference to selling anything. Since we have yet to get our records from Algonquin Township we have no clue who drafted this and can only assume it was the attorney. If former Highway Commissioner drafted it, it explains even more!
(605 ILCS 5/6-201.10) (from Ch. 121, par. 6-201.10)
Sec. 6-201.10. Have authority to make agreements with the highway commissioner of any other road district or with the corporate authorities of any municipality located in the same county or in an adjoining county or with the county board of the county in which such road district is located or of any adjoining county, for the lease or exchange of idle machinery, equipment or tools belonging to the district, upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon. (Source: Laws 1959, p. 196.)
The sale of the used sweeper was neither a lease or an exchange according to the records we have obtained, which includes the check from the Village that paid for the purchased sweeper.
The laws are not hard to read or comprehend but it is becoming ever so clear we have attorneys involved in local government that appear to have no concept of comprehension of our state laws or the ability to validate the laws they cite, assuming this was in fact drafted by an attorney.
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we ask that you consider donating at the below link.
Elizabeth GruberPosted at 08:11h, 14 December
I would have liked that dinner but just can’t seem to find the answer to your question.
HomerPosted at 11:35h, 15 December
Exchange can mean money for something in return some dictionaries give that as a meaning
jmkraftPosted at 16:02h, 15 December
Not when another section of the same statute talks about “sales” or selling equipment…
Kirk AllenPosted at 19:49h, 15 December
exchange of idle machinery, equipment or tools belonging to the district, It spells out WHAT can be exchanged. Idle machinery, equipment or tools.
homerPosted at 20:52h, 15 December
The sweeper wasnt being used at the time so it was idle any equipment can be put in that category at any time
Kirk AllenPosted at 00:38h, 16 December
Oh really, so why at the SAME time were they buying a new one? Did you just confirm that this sale was all BS?
HomerPosted at 05:16h, 16 December
To replace the idled one because it couldn’t sweep d s very good
Kirk AllenPosted at 09:19h, 16 December
Homer, read the law and apply modern English language. Exchange of……….. The two parties can exchange the items listed. If one has a sweeper and the other has a truck and they consider them idle, they can exchange them. No matter how hard you try to read into the law to defend these actions it won’t work. What they did was no in accordance with the law they cited as giving them this power.
anonymousPosted at 15:31h, 16 December
How many other pieces of “idle” equipment valued in excess of $50,000 were “exchanged” prior to this “idle” street sweeper?
What was the actual value of this street sweeper? Unless there was significant unreported damage the value probably exceeded $100,000 rather than what the taxpayers received as part of the deal cut to send it out the door.