Shelby Co., Ill. (ECWd) –
Just when you think you have seen everything, up jumps what may be one of the dumbest moves from a County Board Chairman we have ever reported on, if the allegation is true.
Tad Mayhall, Shelby County Chairman, according to the candidate who posted a copy of the endorsement, has issued an endorsement for a candidate running for Shelby County Treasurer.
While most will think that is no big deal, hold that thought.
The letter uses the county logo, county letterhead, county address, and indicates it was done by Tad Mayhall in his capacity as County Board Chairman.
The Shelby County Board adopted an ethics policy that defines prohibited political activities and outlines the process for violations. It appears the adopted policy mirrors the model ethics ordinance found on the Attorney General’s website at this link.
We will provide the key definitions from the law that directly apply to the alleged Tad Mayhall letter of endorsement on County letterhead. We say allegedly because, as of publication, Mayhall has ignored our requests for verification, and the County has yet to respond to our FOIA request for a copy of the public record. It is possible that Don Debolt either created the endorsement letter or was given a created endorsement letter claiming it came from the Chairman when it may not have. We do not put it past certain people to create such propaganda as we are talking about Shelby County, where a past attempt to influence an election resulted in a person pleading his 5th amendment rights. So, until we receive a response from the public body to our FOIA request or from Mayhall, we cannot confirm its authenticity.
- (a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this Act, each governmental entity other than a community college district, and each community college district within 6 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly, shall adopt an ordinance or resolution that regulates, in a manner no less restrictive than Section 5-15 and Article 10 of this Act
- “Campaign for elective office” means any activity in furtherance of an effort to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any federal, State, or local public office, …….”
- “Political” means any activity in support of or in connection with any campaign for elective office,,,,,,,”
- “Prohibited political activity” means:
- (12) Campaigning for any elective office or for or against any referendum question.
- Prohibited Political Activities:
- Section 5-1. Prohibited political activities. (a) No officer or employee shall intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time, as defined herein. No officer or employee shall intentionally use any property or resources of the [name of entity] in connection with any prohibited political activity.
- Ethics Training
- (a) Each officer, member, and employee must complete, at least annually beginning in 2004, an ethics training program conducted by the appropriate State agency. Each ultimate jurisdictional authority must implement an ethics training program for its officers, members, and employees. These ethics training programs shall be overseen by the appropriate Ethics Commission and Inspector General appointed pursuant to this Act in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General.
We understand several citizens of Shelby County are planning on filing a formal Ethics Complaint against the County Chairman for the alleged use of public letterhead in his capacity as County Chairman to aid a candidate for office. Any such complaint is to be filed with the Ethics Commission created in the adopted policy.
Section 20-5. (a) Complaints alleging a violation of this Ordinance shall be filed with the Ethics Commission.
The process of filing the complaint will once again expose numerous failures from the Shelby County Board, past and present. We have requested the applicable records for the appointment of an Ethics Commission, but do not expect to receive anything as we do not believe they ever complied with that portion of the law.
- (c) Upon not less than 48 hours’ public notice, the Commission shall meet to review the sufficiency of the complaint and, if the complaint is deemed sufficient to allege a violation of this Ordinance, to determine whether there is probable cause, based on the evidence presented by the complainant, to proceed.
Once any complaints are filed, we should see a County Board scrambling to comply with the law, but we would not place any bets on it.
For those who want to imply that this matter is no big deal, we encourage they read the actual penalties for such violations, which are considered Class A misdemeanors.
While we believe there is in fact a clear violation of the Ethics Act if Mayhall did, as alleged by the Candidate, there are election laws that also forbid such actions that are also applicable and should be enforced. Recognizing a long history of lack of accountability to just about any violation of the law in Shelby County, we won’t hold our breath that any alleged violator will ever be held accountable.
14 Responses
The chairman has proven time and again that he does not have an ethical bone in his body. The local toxicity master or a.k.a Ms. Cole has done a fabulous job with her puppets. They will take the fall while she sits back and smiles.
Illinois law already has the basic rule you’re reaching for: public officials cannot use government time, property, staff, or other public resources (including logos, websites, and letterhead) to engage in campaign activity or other “prohibited political activity.” That’s exactly why what happened in Shelby County is being called out as an ethics problem.
Once federal funding money is in the mix, you’re in Hatch Act / anti‑lobbying territory on top of state ethics law.
I guess you missed the candidate that was running for Sheriff, Joe Duncan had a couple letter heads from the Douglas County Corner and the school. Great way to zero in on just one and not look to see if there were any others that you think have done wrong. Ethics indeed.
Do you think we have a magic wand to produce all endorsements to us? We rely on people to send us those documents – we don’t go looking for them.
LOL that’s rich.
“I guess you missed the candidate that was running for Sheriff, Joe Duncan had a couple letter heads from the Douglas County Corner and the school. Great way to zero in on just one and not look to see if there were any others that you think have done wrong. Ethics indeed.”
To be fair, its not like they put out a mailer to watchdog groups.
To suggest bias from a watchdog group that targets “Public Officials” as a general category is a gross mischaracterization and clear demonstration of a very confusing bad faith premise.
Your position should have begun with providing notice of the alleged infringments and then when reasonable ignored I would have engaged with your arguments myself.
So until such notice is provided I will just asume you are grinding an axe because they posted a story about someone near and dear to you or maybe about you even.
Please who are you kidding, I put the information out there and instead of “Hey we’ll look into it, or thanks for the information” they come back with an excuse. It’s been one-sided “journalism” for quite some time.
With what proof? You expect people to act on your accusations? Provide documentation and then come back to the table. We will wait……
It can simply be found on Facebook, no need to send documentation. Check the candidate’s page perhaps?
With your accurate read on Liberty’s axe‑grinding, I would make an educated guess that the same person also runs the ‘ReOpen Illinois’ Facebook page. The language, syntax, and recycled clichés are nearly identical, and the same bad‑faith premises show up there just as clearly.
Didn’t know the ReOpen Illinois Facebook page existed, till now. Thanks for the info. Nice to know not alone with the similar thoughts about the “Blog Dogs” as they like to refer to ECWD’s. Ax to grind, really. Simply pointed out what they failed to find. Oh wait, they don’t do the leg work. It’s given to them, my bad.
Nobody goes to jail for their crimes and bad behavior along with having no shame
Great reporting but where is the state’s attorney?? He should at least resign
RE: Nick Cohan: There is this thing baked into municipal law referred to by courts as, Good Faith Officers Doctrine. For police it invokes “qualified immunity” and for public officials it implies “Indemnification”.
How you defeat thattis called, “Contemporaneous Notice” “Actual Knowledge”, if you can provide proof of service about an action being taken by a public official and they continue this behavior after notice then it detroys and “good faith argument”.
Send them an email. it does not matter if they respond or not, “Knew or Should Have Known’ is a well established principal. If they continue from that point then you atleast have them on a “fiduciary breach – duty to the law”.
Wash rinse repeat up the chain of command all the way to the AG Integrity Bureau – Public Corruption Unit. They are your hammer!
RE: Nick Cohan: The coroner like many other county operations are considered corporations of the county. The States Attorney is an elected official for the state that also serves as legal cousel for the county board (coroner oversight authority). This represents a conflict of interest and must be brought to the courts for appointing a special prosecutor. The States attorney has discretion in matters of interests for the public on issues like these. Individuals with standing can act as relator and bring the matter before the court if the States Attorney refuses to act on merit.
Basically, draw a big circle on the ground and then follow it till the end.