McHenry County Blog

In addition to the (sadly common) violent crimes and vehicle related crimes, the "Indictments", Northwest Herald, September 24, 2006, includes these categories:

Charge: Retail theft

Charge: Theft over $300

-------------------------

Re the D158 alleged theft -

"In the meantime, area police have said they will wait on the results of the forensic audits before moving forward with possible charges against the district payroll employee who may have stolen as much as $10,000 from the district coffers." is the excerpt from the Daily Herald's "Negotiations continue in Dist. 300" (which talks about both districts), Posted Wednesday, September 27, 2006.
---------------

Allowing for the fact I have great respect for our police, it does seem odd to people on the outside of the loop when they think of the other indictments above and the comparison to D158's circumstances.

Then there's Cal's reference to the Tribune piece about an individual in District 63 in Darien and an individual who was supposedly "issuing herself bogus checks." The cumulative dollar amount is higher and the D158 total isn't known, however, District 158 does mention an extra check in its background info which is part of the letter seeking an outside firm to do its forensic audits......

The Who, What, Where, Why, How, When questions do seem to abound in all things that are D158.

Things that seem so logical and one step follows the next just don't seem to apply in this arena.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm....
 

In addition to the previous comment - the Sept. 28, 2006 Daily Herald speaks of a case in Gilberts - where a private sector business employee apparently admitted stealing money from a cash drawer. The theft is broken into two amounts and totals $2,200. The date is on or about Sept. 22. There is an admission and a felony theft charge was made. That's "like" only six days.

Again, it makes people wonder why the D158 charge is "on hold" if the employee was terminated and specific details can be verified.

What is the logic for different treatment? Is it because it involves a public service business (schools), or "?"
 

It's called statute of limitations, my friends....the longer it gets put on the back burner, the easier it will be to bury the evidence and hold off on any prosecution....if the time limit is up, there won't be a case...as to the ??? why of it all??
There's most likely more than one person involved. And, judging by the lame excuse legal counsel for the district, I am sure there won't be much movement on this in a timely fashion...
It is a delay tactic....
The only way this will move forward is if someone puts their feet to the fire and demands an audit....TODAY....
I am sure there's probably a whole lotta stealin' goin' on....
 

sunegirl: You baited the hook. Any idea where?
 

A recent meeting packet (part of the online D158 site info if it still loads) included a draft of the letter seeking bids for the two forensic audits to be peformed.

The draft included some background (generalized, no names).

That specific section is worth a quick read.
--------------------
 

I think the fishin' hole you are lookin' for is the one that involves huge bonds issued for building projects that were not needed...ie, the whole upstairs of the high school now sits empty, along with all the desks, chairs, and equipment....this was so two new junior high schools could be built....which, if you follow the "projected" and alledged head counts, you will soon realize that their numbers are hugely off...not to mention, that under Kortemeyer's tutelage, someone couldn't seem to walk out to the bus yard and correctly count the number of buses being used, and that cost the taxpayers over a million dollars! If the school officials put on paper that there were say, 12 buses running, but there was only 6 buses running, and they received emergency state funding for those 12 buses, WHERE DID ALL THE MONEY GO? Wouldn't there be a surplus?? This means that emergency money was never needed...this means that the $3million they asked for and received was used for something else? This means someone signed off on this....and coincidentally, that particular piece of paper just happens to be missing a signature??? HOW CONVENIENT! As to the building of two new junior high schools that supposedly now are over crowded and need additional rooms added on, it does make one wonder where EXACTLY all the money goes...
When I asked Kim, Mike, and the others this question, I was told that "since you already have the answer, there is no point in me trying to answer you..." (mike skala)....(he was saying that I seemed to already have a pre-conceived notion about the board) I have now come to the conclusion that it isn't necessarily that the board knows where the money went, or how it is being used, it is more likely that they are too stupid to really figure it out....that is, all except Larry...
If you stay ignorant, you are less likely to be blamed....you can pull the , "Oh, darn-we-just-didn't-know-card"....
That was the same card they played with the referendum...
Maybe it's time to deal from a different deck, hmmm?