Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

July 22, 2024

Shelby County – Selective Outrage?

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On July 2, 2024

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.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • Gary Kiser
    Posted at 12:36h, 02 July Reply

    Good Lord don’t the people of Shelby county have things better to do than worry about a refrigerator being bought and placed in a public office??
    It makes perfect sense to have a refrigerator there for employees, including the state’s attorney, who is an employee of Shelby county.

    Find something productive to do and stop worrying about these little petty grievances because this issue is truly nothing more than selective outrage.

  • Droopy: Master Sergeant
    Posted at 16:18h, 02 July Reply

    The same “saviors” that blame ECWD for destroying Shelby county are actually the ones destroying it. The false information and attack because their hate of what is right and good is obvious. Hopefully those they relentlessly attack and lie about will stay strong. Makes you wonder about the elected officials they don’t attack. What are they doing to make sure they are not targeted. Pretty sure anyone with half a bit of sense can figure that out. Maybe one of these days there will be an indictment and someone held accountable so that Mr. Cole and friends crawl under the rock they came out of.

  • JP
    Posted at 10:17h, 03 July Reply

    Seems like a lot of pissing and moaning on both sides to me. Let’s focus on the 74k+ that went out the door with no Board approval. That’s a bigger fish to be concerned about. Regardless of the fact it probably would be paid out anyway. The fact of the matter is that amount of money is written from the County checkbook and did not go before the appropriate committee and review/approval process defined currently by the Board. Stating it doesn’t require oversight is highly questionable. Stating selective outrage of those taxpayers concerned about it is highly questionable.. Process and Policy are in place for a review/approval process. This is a large sum of money and there was from all I can tell no written contractual agreement. That’s questionable as well. No timekeeping records to support FMLA awarding is highly questionable. As the State of Illinois how payment of pay works with no timekeeping documents to support it? Union employees or non-union employees require timekeeping documents. Are not monies supplemented for this office from the State? Perhaps an investigation is warranted from the Office of the Inspector General. There is also the question of the ghost employee as well that received compensation of $12,500. Where are the supporting timekeeping documents? The Auditor General’s Office did a major audit a couple decades ago regarding this problem at the State level. Is this now a problem at the local level as well? In the grand scheme of things there are many things to be worked up about concerning how monies are spent/not spent and documented/not documented in the County. A refrigerator concern is stupid. Especially if it is essentially bought by someone in the office with their own money. This story is really pedestrian at best.

    • John Kraft & Kirk Allen
      Posted at 10:22h, 03 July Reply

      There was no “ghost” employee.

    • Kirk Allen & John Kraft
      Posted at 14:28h, 03 July Reply

      Maybe you should let SCF know how stupid it was to make a mountain out of the refrigerator purchased with private funds as it was them who tried to make it into something it wasnt, not us.

  • JP
    Posted at 22:00h, 03 July Reply

    If one “donates” something and then takes it back when they leave office then is it really a true donation? No it is not. The refrigerator was merely for him and his staff while he was in office. A true donation is a gift given in the spirit of not expecting it returned. If he took anything “donated” or in which he used his own money on and packed it up and took it back up North when he left office then it wasn’t a donation.

    Kirk, Again, I am not sure whom or what an SCF is, but it appears both sides are acting a bit childish based on the information in your story.

    John, While they were not in essence ghost employees there does seem to be a great lack of timekeeping documentation to be found during their tenure with the county. Lawyers charge by the hour and are very good about tracking it to the minute. Why would not the same have taken place to track his own employees and follow the policy put in place for the remainder of the employees in the county. Policies are for all and not the select few. If it comes to question regarding the granting of FMLA benefits then where are the documents recording all hours required to meet FMlA requirements by the feds? If we are pushing to have the remainder of the County employees follow a certain set of rules then all must follow them. Union or non-union. Salaried or hourly.

Post A Comment