Video – Shelby County Board Special Meeting

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

The Shelby County Board held a special meeting last night to address an appointment to a vacancy in the office of State’s Attorney (SA), a request for the Judge to take action regarding the vacancy, and a couple of union settlement matters.

The wording on the agenda created confusion for some and it’s important for all the board members to know what powers and duties they have and the process for taking a certain action related to the vacancy of the office of State’s Attorney.  It should be noted that for those who rightfully voiced concern over the process last night, this board has had zero legal counsel present for meetings for months, let alone on the process of appointing a replacement SA.

The appointment of a SA is the duty of the County Board Chairman, with the advice and consent of the Board. Once a vacancy has been declared, the election law 10 ILCS 5/25-11 outlines the process.

The GOP Central Committee was notified and while they can suggest a candidate to the chairman, it is not the place of the central committee to distribute candidate materials to the county board, which appears is what happened and led to the confusion during the meeting.  The central committee’s recommendation is to go to the chairman, who in turn can share it with the board and bring it to the table for a vote-seeking their consent or he can ignore the recommendation, which appears to be what happened last night. After the meeting, several people shared concerns with the alleged candidate selected and speculated if those same concerns might be why Chairman Orhman took no action on that item.

The poor wording of item 6 on the agenda, we believe, is what lead to so much confusion on what was actually taking place regarding any appointment by the resident judge.

“Discussion and vote to request Resident Circuit Judge to take necessary action to fill the position until new State’s Attorney can take position full time”

As pointed out by the chairman during the meeting, there was no need to actually vote on anything regarding action by the resident judge. His goal was to basically show board support for certain actions to be taken by the resident judge. However, the wording, “action to fill the position” is where the confusion lies.  When a vacancy in the office of SA is not immediately filled by the county board, which has 60 days to fill it, the court has to exercise its powers to ensure cases before them have a prosecutor or defense.  That power is outlined in 55 ILCS 5/3 -9008.

“If the court finds that the State’s Attorney is sick, absent, or otherwise unable to fulfill the State’s Attorney’s duties, the court may appoint some competent attorney to prosecute or defend the cause or proceeding.”

The appointments being made by the resident judge are not to the Office of State’s Attorney, but rather appointments of a special prosecutor to prosecute or defend the cause or proceeding on the court’s docket.

This very step is the failsafe to the public which ensures cases continue to get prosecuted or defended during a vacancy of the office of State’s Attorney.  We note again that the legislature provided a 60-day period for which the county board has to fill such a vacancy.  As referred by one of the public comments made, the social media and rumor mill have managed to stir up all kinds of misinformation and accusations which are all based on ignorance of the very laws in place, with zero knowledge of what steps were being taken and discussed by the ones in charge of this process.

The remaining matters dealt with rescinding a settlement agreement approved at a prior meeting and approving the corrected version.  That matter was tabled as it appears a copy of each was not available to clearly clarify what language was changed in the correct version.

Part 2 (2-2-2023):