Shelby Co. (ECWd) –
Shelby County, Illinois, may well be the foundation for educating America on why there is a culture of corruption in local government, just as the forensic auditor advised the county board a few years ago. Unless that culture changes, expect to live in the twilight zone.
Over numerous years of reporting on a county government’s inability to hire outside legal counsel, Shelby County became the poster child for the subject matter. A review of this article and its linked laws and articles provides the background that most folks understand.
As Shelby County is the epicenter of the most recent documented history that makes it clear who can or cannot hire legal counsel in county government, they once again prove that laws mean nothing.
The September 2025 county board meeting had an agenda item that once again defies all logic and the law.
“9. Discussion and vote to engage the law firm of Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd. To assist with the preparation, negotiation, review, and revision of road use agreements for solar and wind farm projects in Shelby County.”
There is no provision in the law for a county board to hire a law firm. We reached out to County Board Chairman Tad Mayhall as well as the State’s Attorney, Ruth Woolery, and asked if they would provide the statutory authority for such a hire by the county board. Neither responded to the request, which is not surprising since there is no such law on the books allowing the board to do what they did, voted to hire a law firm.
We currently have an Attorney General Public Access Counselor request for review pertaining to a closed session the county board held during the same meeting, citing litigation as the reason for the closed session. Our request for review is because we have been told there were discussions about the issue of the county hiring a private law firm, which is not litigation. Discussions outside the cited reason for the closed session are not permitted under the Open Meetings Act.
We have also been told that the State’s Attorney was a party to the questionable discussion and informed the board that she was doing the hiring, and the reason for the agenda item was to let the board know what she wanted to do.
If it is true that the State’s Attorney advised the board that it was she who was going to hire the law firm, why then would a county board vote on such a matter? If the State’s Attorney wanted to hire a law firm, there is no need for the county board to be involved at all, outside of budgetary issues.
According to the current public record, the board voted to hire a private law firm. Is that what happened, or is the public in the dark on what really happened?
We asked the State’s Attorney for a copy of the engagement letter/agreement with the law firm of Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd. What she provided failed to include the terms and conditions of the engagement, how special. Why would she not share the terms and conditions portion of the engagement letter when it specifically points to it as part of the engagement? A copy of what the SA provided, 2 pages, can be downloaded at this link.
What she did not disclose is that the agreement outlines the county could be on the hook for legal bills as high as $350.00 an hour for work that, frankly, could be done by any competent State’s Attorney. How? There are numerous counties that already have wind and solar road use agreements. Why on earth would anyone hire a law firm to recreate documents that are readily available with a simple FOIA request to other counties? The full engagement documentation can be downloaded at this link, and it includes the 2 pages provided by the SA and an additional 5 pages that she failed to provide.
We agree that a State’s Attorney now has the power to appoint a special assistant State’s Attorney due to a law change in 2019, after we exposed what was going on. We do not agree that they can just hire a law firm to do work they are elected to do. To date, she has been unwilling to provide any statutory authority for the hiring of a private law firm outside the statutory provision.
Where this gets twisted is with a simple FOIA request for “a copy of any records that indicate the names of Special Assistant State’s Attorneys that you have appointed to your office, since taking office”. Her initial response should concern everyone.
“For clarification purposes, are you seeking the names of special prosecutor’s that have been appointed by the Court, for example from the State Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, or individuals that I myself have appointed?”
Is there anyone who does not understand what I asked for in my FOIA request? Does it say anything about special prosecutors or court appointments? No, it was clear, but for reasons not understood yet, she needed clarification, which I provided.
“A copy of any records that indicate the names of Special Assistant State’s Attorneys that you have appointed to your office, since taking office.”
I then received two documents indicating she has made two such appointments, Elizabeth Dobson in May of 2024 and Nichole Kroncke in October of 2025.
That response indicates there are only two records indicating the names of the appointments she made.
We suggested the PAC let the public integrity division know about the law firm hiring because there is no provision for such a hiring to take place, outside of an actual appointment.
Woolery’s response is priceless.
“there is nothing in the Counties Code or any other law that requires the appointment of a special assistant to be memorialized in writing, or require specific appointment procedures.”
Is she implying the law firm was appointed without any documentation in writing? So what is the engagement letter? A document in writing that she failed to disclose in my request for such records, or the truth of the matter, she is now exposed for hiring a law firm to do her job rather than appoint a special assistant state’s attorney?
In fairness, her entire response also pointed to a Rule 23 ruling in a Shelby County case that just happens to directly conflict with established Supreme Court precedent on the subject. For those not familiar with a Rule 23 order, it’s commonly used when the court doesn’t want its decision to be case law or overturned. Rule 23 orders do not establish case law, and the Supreme Court rarely takes them, if ever.
“Mr. Rogina, while entirely outside the scope of your duties in evaluating whether or not an OMA violation has occurred, I feel it’s necessary to respond to Mr. Allen’s allegations contained in his email below asking for a referral to the public integrity division for retaining outside counsel. I would direct your attention to the 5th District case Bennett v. Shelby County Board, et al., 2021 IL App (5th) 200370-U, where the Court held that not only can a State’s Attorney appoint qualified attorneys to assist when the public interest requires (See 55 ILCS 5/4-2003(b)) but there is nothing in the Counties Code or any other law that requires the appointment of a special assistant to be memorialized in writing, or require specific appointment procedures.”
Which is it, Ms. Woolery? You only appointed 2 Special Assistant State’s Attorneys and hired a law firm, or you appointed 3 Special Assistant State’s Attorneys, and you have not documented one of them, because there is nothing in the law that requires such an appointment to be memorialized in writing or require specific appointments? If it’s the latter, why on earth did you memorize the Dobson and Kroncke appointments in writing?
We will update with a new article once the PAC has made a determination on the alleged OMA violation for the closed session meeting held by the county board and attended by legal counsel, Shelby County State’s Attorney Ruth Woolery. If they determine there was, in fact, a violation, that portion of the closed session recording would be subject to FOIA. We can only imagine what that recording is going to reveal on this matter.
Maybe the County Board could step up and do the right thing and vote to release that audio in an effort to show the world how transparent they are.
