One of the big things that has happened this past week was our CAO got a response from her request of the State's Attorney's Office to investigate Trustee Bryan Younge for harassment. Shockingly, it wasn't a simple "no, we decline to investigation" -- it was a "NO, we don't do that!"
So -- here's my question, we spend a LOT of money for a village attorney. I know from reading the bills that CAO Smith is essentially on the phone with Mr. Smoron daily. So, don't you think that at some point in all that time, he'd mention to her that what she's asking the State's Attorney's office to do isn't what they actually do? Why does this seem like a reasonable conversation:
CAO: Hey, Michael, I think we need to have Younge investigated because he's annoying the Trustees. Do you think I should send a letter to the State's Attorney for that?
Mr. Smoron: Well, you could, but it won't do much good -- since that's not their job. I'd suggest if you think he's committed a crime that you report it to the police department INSIDE YOUR OWN BUILDING.
Now, had this been the conversation, my respect for Mr. Smoron might have gone through the roof. However, I'm not entirely sure that CAO Smith even asked him about this idea -- since he mentioned in the last board meeting we had that he received the packet on Friday to review and had not seen some of the pieces that related to Trustee Younge. It was in that statement that he basically ensured that his legal firm would be the prime beneficiary of the issues between the board and Trustee Younge by basically requiring him to FOIA every single thing he needed from the village -- all at an amazing profit to the law firm of ZFRM.
But back to CAO Smith -- one must ask where did she get the idea to write a letter accusing a sitting Trustee of harassment to the State's Attorney's office? If we assume that Mr. Smoron knows the limits of the office, we can assume that he'd have advised against this truly odd move. So, who and at the end of the day, one must ask why and what was gained other than wasting time, money on legal bills, and a little grandstanding at a meeting?