Shelby Co., Ill. (ECWd) –
The Shelby County Board approved a claim by the new State’s Attorney for the purchase of a refrigerator for her office. For those who have not followed the local propaganda about the prior State’s Attorney and his purchase of a refrigerator, we are confident you will see this for what it is, selective outrage.
The prior SA purchased a refrigerator with his own money, not the taxpayer’s money. The implication made at the time was that the original claim was not re-submitted because there was doubt over the public purpose of a refrigerator in the office.
Propagandist: “We have to ask, did Mr. Hanlon originally believe his “refridgerator” served a public purpose, then reconsidered?”
Maybe asking Mr. Hanlon the question instead of pushing a false narrative would have resulted in a publication of truth.
We did speak with Hanlon and his reason for paying for it with his own money was to eliminate the stupid hysteria being created over the use of a refrigerator, which most offices have in the courthouse. We wrote about that matter in this article.
Fast forward to the current SA who had the taxpayers pay for a refrigerator in the office.
While we do not know who “we” is when the propagandist writes, the words are telling.
“we see no public purpose served in keeping Mr. Hanlon’s drinks cold.”
The claim submitted by the current SA said it was for employee use. The claim form from the prior SA said it was an employee benefit.
So, if the local propagandist thinks there is no public purpose for a refrigerator in the office of the State’s Attorney for Rob Hanlon, where is the coverage of the current State’s Attorney and her actual use of taxpayer money for a refrigerator?
The local propagandist’s comments on the matter are most telling in light of the current purchase from the same office.
“Since Mr. Hanlon has represented the ECWD in the past, we are surprised he would believe the fridge was for public purpose then change his mind.”
“Was he unsure if reimbursing him for the fridge really did serve a public purpose or did he know and was prepared to ask the taxpayers to cover his fridge anyway?”
“Did someone inform him that asking taxpayers to pay for his fridge after telling the dive team it couldn’t pay for its breakfasts is kind of bad look for the new kid in school?”
“Mr. Hanlon’s mini-fridge sure packs in a lot of questions.”
If a refrigerator purchased with private funds packs in a lot of questions, we can only wonder why a refrigerator purchased with taxpayer funds doesn’t even get a single question, let alone paragraphs of disparaging comments.
For the record, there is nothing illegal or improper with taxpayer funds being used to have a refrigerator in the office.
Selective outrage is once again exposed. Stay tuned as there is plenty more to come.
