Campton board needs legal advice

Congratulations to the village of Campton Hills and its legal council with an excellent example of redirecting a critical issue.

They place their latest problems with the appropriations ordinance on "incorrect information" presented by a village resident in the village board meeting as it relates to levels of contingency for an appropriations ordinance/budget.

The resident read the state statute, which sets a limit of $100,000 for a contingency line item. The village treasurer and legal counsel read the statute as well. The legal counsel, after wavering, waffling and sidestepping the issue had no further comment in the meeting.

The village board then spent several hours adjusting the appropriations ordinance based on this and other information. They then had a vote, which was 3-3, and the village president was required to cast the deciding vote. It passed.

Question: We have paid this legal firm more than $400,000 in fees over the past year. The legal counsel was in the meeting and did not have any solid advice to offer. The board blundered through the session and narrowly passed the ordinance. They had to hold another meeting to correct the matter.

This village board, with more than one year of experience, directed by a legal firm with much more experience, seems to have also developed a thick veneer of Teflon, which allows all blame for mistakes and ineptitude to slide right off. If not, they can blame a resident who raised an issue of concern.

The legal counsel, which seems to be running the village, should be the one to accept the responsibility for this mess but seems to spend more time looking for ways to blame anyone but the village board for their problems.

We who oppose the village are asked why we do so. It seems the village board is making our case for us.

Rich Seehafer

St. Charles