Clark Co. (ECWd) –
For those not familiar with the Dolson Township issues involving what appears to be theft of over $200,000.00 by the former Supervisor and/or Clerk, we urge you to read the articles at this link.
Before and during the November 4, 2025, Township meeting, the public was told that the alleged theft of funds was still in the hands of the Illinois State Police. The attorney for the Township, prior to the start of the meeting, told us he had spoken with the State’s Attorney that day, and that he had indicated he was waiting on the ISP to finish their investigation.
November 20, 2025, I asked the State’s Attorney the following:
“We understand the Dolson Township Supervisor and Clerk are being investigated by the Illinois State Police. Can you confirm that is the case, and if so, when do you anticipate their investigation being completed?”
He has not responded to that email.
The same day I asked the Township Attorney the following:
“When we spoke before the Dolson Township meeting, you indicated you had spoken with the State’s Attorney earlier in the day and that the ISP is still investigating the alleged theft of funds. Do you have any updates on where the investigation is at?”
On the same day, he responded:
“I will check the status of the investigation.”
Five days later, after not hearing anything, I asked if there was any update.
“No, waiting on a response from the State’s Attorney, Joe.”
Back in October, the 26th to be exact, we provided an update on the Freedom of Information Act request we made to the Illinois State Police in this article. Pay close attention to the dates being shared.
On October 15, 2025, the ISP response indicated they needed more time.
On October 22, 2025, the ISP denied the request as unduly burdensome and asked that the request be narrowed.
Well past the deadline for a FOIA response, November 19, 2025, the ISP responded, and it’s a doozy!
“For items 1 and 2 of your request, ISP is denying your request pursuant to Section 7(1)(d)(i) of FOIA: “Subject to this requirement, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: … (d) Records in the possession of any public body created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure would: (i) interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement or correctional agency that is the recipient of the request.” (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(i)). “
“For item 3 of your request, ISP is granting your request in part and denying your request in part. The request was denied in part because some of the information in the records required redaction and/or were exempt from disclosure. The basis for the ISP’s decision in this matter is as follows: Section 7(1)(b) of FOIA: “Subject to this requirement, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (b) Private information, unless disclosure is required by another provision of this Act, a State or federal law, or a court order.” (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b)).”
The subpoenas we requested can be viewed below or downloaded at this link.
The final response is the first actual confirmation on the record that the ISP was investigating anything related to Dolson Township, and it was like pulling teeth to get them to respond, which is common with the ISP FOIA process.
In the final response at this link, the ISP stated that they turned over the case file for a charging decision to the Clark County State’s Attorney on October 6, 2025. By all indications, the case file has been turned over for a charging decision on October 6, 2025. We note, there is no indication in the response that there is an ongoing investigation that has records that are exempt.
Where to start?
If the case file was turned over for a charging decision on October 6, 2025, why on earth would the State’s Attorney tell the township attorney on November 4th that it was still in the hands of the ISP, assuming the State’s Attorney actually said that? We have no way to confirm the alleged conversation, but we have no reason to believe the Township Attorney would make up such a story.
The public was told at the November 4th meeting that the State’s Attorney is waiting on ISP to finish their investigation. Little did they know that it appears to be false information, as the ISP indicates they turned over the case file for a charging decision by the State’s Attorney almost a full month earlier.
Is it asking too much for the State’s Attorney to provide a simple update on the matter and be honest with the public?
In regard to the ISP, if they turned over the case file on October 6, 2025, how on earth would providing the applicable records be unduly burdensome? Why did it take over a month for them to comply with the very records they had already compiled in a case file? To imply the request was unduly burdensome when in fact those records are already compiled in a case file points to a lack of honesty in our opinion, especially since they turned over the applicable records and properly denied those currently exempt.
While we do not know the political games that may get played in the Clark County State’s Attorney’s office, we must note that there are several criminal charges in the history of one of the Dolson Township officials that resulted in charges being dismissed. We pray that is not the case with this one, but we would not be surprised to see yet another case where public officials are not held accountable.
We will continue to provide updates on the Dolson Township matter as more information is obtained.
ISP25-033524 Subpoenas_Redacted
