Public Watchdog.org

Tonight: A New Episode Of “As The Township Turns”

08.06.18

For those of you who might be following the continuing saga of the “As The Township Turns” soap opera, the Maine Township Board is holding a special meeting TONIGHT– 6:30 p.m. at Township Hall (1700 Ballard) – that might lead to a big reveal: The results of the Township’s attorneys’ investigation into whether Trustee Dave Carrabotta did, or did not, grope, grab, touch or brush Trustee Kim Jones’ derriere during Township functions on three separate occasions.

We say “might” lead to a big reveal because the sole purpose of the special meeting is for the Board to vote on whether or not to release the investigators’ report to us taxpayers who presumably paid several thousand dollars (if not much more) for that investigation and, therefore, deserve to know whether Carrabotta is some kind of sleazebag, whether Jones made the whole thing up, or something in between.

But unofficial Jones media flak Todd Wessell, the editor/publisher of The Journal newspapers, released an article last evening (Sunday, although the computer version is dated August 3) reporting that neither Jones nor Supervisor Laura Morask will be attending tonight’s meeting due to “prior commitments” (“Several Maine Twp. Officials Unlikely To Attend Monday’s Meeting On ‘Harassment’ Report”).

According to the Journal article, “only three trustees will likely attend”: Carrabotta, Claire McKenzie and Susan Sweeney. That would constitute a quorum for a legal meeting, and we believe that a vote by all three to release the investigators’ report would be lawful Board action.

Morask reportedly wants the meeting postponed until she and Jones can attend because she claims there is information in the report that needs clarification or correction, although she hasn’t identified any such information or why it needs clarification/correction.

So even before the Board gets to the issue of whether the report will be released, we may need to wade through a few preliminary dramas, such as: (a) Will Morask and/or Jones actually stay away or show up; (b) if Morask and Jones stay away, will Carrabotta, McKenzie or Sweeney decide not to show up so that there’s no quorum; (c) even if there is a quorum, will Carrabotta, McKenzie or Sweeney back down and vote to postpone a vote on releasing the investigators’ report; or (d) will something else occur that, while unpredictable, is clearly intended to keep the report hidden from the taxpayers, even if only for a short while longer?

Tune in to tonight’s episode of “As The Township Turns” and find out.

To read or post comments, click on title.

5 comments so far

While I’m interested in the report, it is highly unlikely to be able to resolve anything at all. We are unlikely to learn EITHER whether “Carrabotta is some kind of sleazebag” or if “Jones made the whole thing up.” It is seldom that black-and-white, and even if it was — evidence of either claim would be hard to come by.

A very simple explanation for why Jones spoke privately to Carrabotta, and why the attorney suggested private resolution, is that they were aware that the filing of an official complaint would not be a efficacious route to resolve the situation. She chose to simply ask him to modify his behavior, and he reacted with a temper tantrum and panicked attempt to clear his name (which hadn’t even been sullied — until he brought it to light by making a scene during a public hearing). That explanation is far more parsimonious that the convoluted narrative you have advanced in this blog.

If you are unhappy about the waste of taxpayer money on this report, you should take it up with the man who called for it — Carrabotta. It appears by all accounts that Jones attempted to privately address what she perceived to be inappropriate behavior. It would not be the public spectacle it has become had he not responded to that conversation with anger and demands for this taxpayer-wasting “theater of the absurd.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Your entire argument presumes misconduct by Carrabotta – e.g., “his behavior” that created a “situation” – which would benefit from an “efficacious route to resolve [it],” presuming that in fact “it” actually occurred.

Frankly, we would have preferred for Jones to have filed a formal workplace harassment complaint with the Cook County Dept. of Human Rights, the Illinois Human Rights Commission, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, like most other victims of workplace harassment do, because those investigations would have cost Maine Twp. taxpayers NOTHING. Instead, Jones chose to lodge her complaint with the Township’s attorneys, who gave Jones what we think is horsebleep advice (the giving of which may have been a conflict of interest), thereby setting in motion the events that have led to the theater of the absurd production in which both she and Carrabotta are featured players.

My comments are not based on that premise. I may have not worded it clearly enough. See last paragraph — “privately address what she perceived to be inappropriate behavior.” She perceived there to be inappropriate behavior. Whether there was, or was not, is unclear. But she chose to address her concerns privately, and he accused her of being “crazy” (recorded on bill pay audio), accused her of “harassing him” by bringing up the matter in a private conversation, and called for an illegal closed session. Therefore, you seem to be placing the blame for taxpayer’s lost dollars in the wrong place.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If she had chosen “to address her concerns privately,” she would have had her conversation with Carrabotta BEFORE she talked to the Township’s attorneys and thereby made those “concerns” Township business.

As for the allegedly “illegal closed session,” we think that was a stupid thing for Carrabotta to propose, and for McKenzie and Sweeney to support. That being said, however, the minutes of that May 22 meeting state: “Attorney Krafthefer requested why it needed to be done in the middle of the Budget Hearing and requested to know if it related to the budget. Attorney Krafthefer stated it is permissible if the majority of the Board agrees to it.”

You raise an excellent point about why did Jones not file a real complaint with any of the three agencies you list, either after the second or third swipe, or after she accused Carrabotta and he denied it.

It’s also very suspicious that while the investigation of that complaint is pending, she signs a letter with 9 Maine Twp. Republican Women criticizing that Foss Eggemann woman for not demanding that Carrabotta resign. And now, just before the report comes out, Jones decides to tell her story to the Journal.

This has “political tricks” written all over it.

I read about this on FB. What is wrong with Ginger Lee? She doesn’t seem to understand simple arguments, and is hell-bent on seeing Carabotta and his known associates burn.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t know Ms. Lee, but from all her FB posts we’ve read and from watching her speak at D-64 meetings, we have two theories (in no particular order):

1. She has no clue about the “clubby” history of Maine Twp. RINO government and politics, and legitimately believes this is a #MeToo issue; or

2. She knows this isn’t a #MeToo issue, but opposes what Carrabotta, McKenzie and Sweeney are doing politically and policy-wise and, therefore, is happy to help run him off the Board.

As we’ve written on several occasions, the election of The Reformers disrupted all the happy times at the Maine RINO Club, including – most notably – non-Assessor Moylan-Krey’s claim to a public pension for allegedly spending more than 1,000 hours a year not assessing anything, while reportedly working full-time as a real estate agent. And that’s probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Any word on what happened at last night’s special meeting?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nope, our stringers have not yet checked in. We’re just hoping they’re okay.



Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>