Shelby County – Written Opinions Speak Loud And Clear – You Can’t Hold Both Offices

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

For years we have said legal opinions need to be in writing.  A written opinion tells the public the reasoning for the opinion expressed, and from that, people can learn many things.

In the case of Shelby County and Vice Chairman Teresa Boehm’s recent nolle prosequi of criminal charges she faced, the Effingham County State’s Attorney provided a ten-page written motion explaining why he was not going to move forward with the prosecution. While there are some misguided statements in the motion, it’s what is not in the motion that speaks loud and clear.

Once charged, the Boehm supporters and the local propaganda social media pushed a narrative that there was no violation of law and that it was perfectly fine for Boehm to hold the two offices in question, County Board member and Township Cemetary Board member.   We provided our opinion on the matter in this article., which outlines specifically why she could not hold both offices and several other problems needing to be addressed by the Township Board.

If it was perfectly fine for her to hold both offices as some have claimed, why was that position not the grounds for not prosecuting?  If it was OK, then a simple explanation as to why it’s OK would suffice to dismiss the charges but that is not what happened. In fact, not only did the prosecutor not say it was OK to hold both offices, but he also made it clear it was not.

“By the plain language of 50 ILCS 105/1, if the allegations of Count I of the Bill of Indictment are proven true, that Defendant simultaneously held the offices of Shelby County Board Member and Rose Township Cemetery Board Member, she may have committed a crime.”

If we are to believe what the local propaganda pushed, that it was OK to hold both offices, how do they cross such a position with the prosecutor’s statement above? Reading the motion, it becomes clear that a county board member cannot hold both offices.   The prosecutor focused on key factors such as mental state, knowingly, strict liability, etc. as it relates to criminality.  He explained why he was not prosecuting which did not include anything indicating it was OK to hold both offices.

“…,the State does not believe that the ends of justice are served by a felony conviction for an unknowing violation of 50 ILCS 105/1 under the facts and circumstances presented.”

The above statement is clear to those who understand the proper application of the law, both in general and in criminal applications.  Holding both offices is not permitted.  The prosecutor exercised his power to determine what is or is not justice. A decision to not prosecute does not mean holding both offices was permissible, just as we said from day one.  Paragraph 33 in the motion points to confirmation a violation took place by indicating “the State does not believe that the ends of justice are served by a felony conviction for an unknowing violation of 50 ILCS 105/1 under the facts and circumstances presented.

Some of the misguided statements.

• 32. “As a result, the State does not believe that it could not meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the required mental state to have criminally violated 50 ILCS 105/1, and moves to nolle prosequi such charge.”
• 48. Otherwise, there could be no possible “intent to defraud” under such circumstances, given that the Rose Township was well aware that it was paying Defendant, along with all of its other Rose Township Cemetery Board Members, for their service”
• 49. “Furthermore, Defendant’s service on the Rose Township Cemetery Board was done in full view of the public, and the amounts paid by the township to cemetery board members was likewise public.”
• 51. “As a result, the State does not believe that it could not meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the intent to defraud and thereby violated 720 ILCS33E-17, and moves to nolle prosequi such charge.”

On the surface, anyone reading paragraphs 32 and 51 would ask, if the prosecutor does not believe that he could not meet his burden, why not prosecute?  Reading the motion in its entirety, we suspect what he meant to say was that, does not believe that it could not meet its burden. 

Paragraph 48 tells us the prosecutor failed to do his homework.  His indication Boehm was getting paid along with all of its other Rose Township Cemetery Board members is simply not true according to the public record.  The Rose Township records indicated Boehm was the only Cemetery Board member.  We have reached out to the prosecutor for comment and will update you with a future article.

Reading paragraph 49 we default back to our original article.  If Boehm’s service on the Rose Township Cemetery Board was done in full view of the public, why were there no minutes for a single meeting? What service was done? Why was she getting paid? What law permitted such payments?  Those questions were never addressed even though they are very valid questions. Now with a claim by a prosecutor that other board members were getting paid, it begs the question, did the Township withhold key records or did the prosecutor fabricate a narrative to support a decision to not prosecute?

A copy of the prosecutor’s motion can be viewed below or downloaded at this link.