Spring Valley, Ill. (ECWd) –
It is well-known that an elected official cannot participate in bringing about their own employment within the public body they were elected to serve in, but that somehow escaped certain elected officials in the city of Spring Valley.
Spring Valley is in Bureau County, Illinois, and has a population of 5,582 as of the 2020 census – in increase of 26 residents from the 2010 census.
After an astonishing population increase of 2.6 (less than 3) people per year, the mayor decided the city was growing at such a pace that it required a new employment (supervision) position be established in the Street Department – and they were going to pay $97,000 per year to the lucky “new” employee.
The problems, as we see them, are that the new employee, Alderman Bogacz, participated in the discussion of, creation of, applied for and interviewed for, and was called upon to act or vote on the Resolutions and Ordinances establishing the new employment position, and on his own appointment to the employment position, while he was still an elected Alderman and attended the meetings and voted in his official capacity.
Here is the timeline as we know it:
- September 8, 2026: The City Council approved Resolution 970 concerning a memorandum of understanding with the Public Works union and the restructuring of foreman and superintendent roles. The vote was 6–2. Alderman Bogacz voted in favor while serving as an alderman.
- September 18: The superintendent job posting is dated September 18, with an advertised salary of $80,000–$99,000 annually. Its responsibilities include supervising Public Works employees, overseeing infrastructure and maintenance projects, and managing departmental budgets.
- September 25, 2026: Alderman Bogacz submitted his resume for the newly formed job while still serving as an alderman and was “interviewed” by the Mayor while still serving as an alderman.
- October 19: City approved Ordinances 1) amending code related to Superintendent of Public Works, 2) amending the salary of the Superintendent of Public Works, and 3) Hiring the Superintendent of Public Works – Bogacz was present at the meeting as an Alderman and “Abstained” from those votes.
- October 19: Alderman Bogacz’s resignation from the council and selection as superintendent were announced – we do not see this announcement in the meeting minutes.
- A municipal officer shall not be financially interested directly in the officer’s own name or indirectly in the name of any other person, association, trust, or corporation, in any contract, work, or business of the municipality or in the sale of any article whenever the expense, price, or consideration of the contract, work, business, or sale is paid either from the treasury or by an assessment levied by statute or ordinance.
Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act:
- Section 2 prohibits an alderman from being appointed to any other office by the mayor unless he is “first” granted a leave of absence or resigns from office.
- Section 3a prohibits any financial interest in his own name, or any other person’s name, in the award of any contract or the performance of any work in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote. Nor may any such officer take or receive, or offer to take or receive, either directly or indirectly, any money or other thing of value as a gift or bribe or means of influencing his vote or action in his official character. Any contract made and procured in violation hereof is void.
- Section 4 prescribes penalties for violations of this Act as Class 4 Felonies.
Alderman Bogacz did not resign during this process, voted in favor of at least one portion of this process (Resolution 970), he was called upon to act or vote on his own hiring among other things (and he did act or vote), and the end result was him receiving ($97k per year) and offering to receive (submission of resume and his job interview) money, which appears to have had a clear influence on his vote in his official position.
Here is what the Illinois Municipal League says about situations such as this, in their paper entitled IMLRMA-Doc-7603, when it discussed the Prosser Rule:
“Thus, if a member abstains because of prohibited conflict of interest as defined in 65 ILCS 5/3.1-55-10 or 50 ILCS 105/3 and 105/4, a question arises as to the effect of that abstention. There is no case law in Illinois which directly addresses this point. However, a public officer can violate these provisions without actually voting since the prohibition is against any interest in a “contract or the performance of any work in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote. An officer cannot escape from being called upon to act or vote. Therefore, any officer having such an interest must effectively resign from office, since he cannot avoid the prohibition by abstaining from voting.[8] Any conviction of the conflict provisions constitutes a class IV felony and, among other penalties, results in removal from office. Thus, a close examination must be made to determine whether an actual conflict of interest exists since in the event he or she has an actual conflict, such an official must resign or risk prosecution from committing a Class IV felony.”
Illinois Official Misconduct Statute:
We also allege the Alderman, in his official capacity, knowingly performed an act he knew was prohibited, Sec 33-3(a)(2) (applying for and accepting the job while being called upon to act or vote on it), and with intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another, he performed an act in excess of his lawful authority (the $97k per year job). Although he did try to distance himself by abstaining from the votes, that does not matter because he was still “called upon” to vote, and he was personally and directly financially interested in the position.
A similar issue occurred in Danville, Illinois, in the late 1980s, where 4 aldermen and their attorney were charged and convicted for setting up and voting on their own employment with the city, which was to start after they left office.
We urge any interested resident of Spring Valley to bring these allegations to the appropriate authorities for their investigation and/or prosecution of this alleged conflict of interest, which landed Alderman Bogacz a $ 97,000-per-year job.
