For whom does spokesman speak?

On May 28, the Daily Herald story, "State tells DuPage election board to dispose of records properly," contained comments by DuPage State's Attorney Joe Birkett, Election Commission Executive Director Robert T. Saar and ubiquitous spokesperson Dan Curry. I was confused as to whom Curry was representing in this article, as he is the spokesperson for Birkett's campaign for state office and the government entity Birkett has direct jurisdiction over - the election commission.

My guess is that Curry was representing both clients, as everyone seemed to be shrugging to the same "non-issue" script regarding the commission's non-compliance with the Local Records Act for more than 20 years. Payments to Accurate Document Destruction for disposal of 198 96-gallon toters of material after being formally alerted of the Local Records Act do not meet our criteria of "good faith." Likewise, payments to Accurate for disposal of 139 96-gallon toters after presented with a cease-and-desist notice and learning that an opinion was pending at the Illinois Attorney General's office are anything but but "noncontroversial" or "erroneous."

The Local Records Act decrees that destroying public records without compliance is a felony.

Curry has been paid over $72,000 by the Commission. Per a FOIA request for all of Curry's written work for them, all the commission could produce were about 10 pages of press releases.

Last year alone, Curry was paid $17,000 by Birkett's campaign. Curry's name appears frequently as Birkett's spokesperson, including the Chicago Tribune's May 14 blog discussing ethics. For Birkett's sake, I hope Curry is working harder for him than he is for the Commission.

It is a conflict of interest for Curry to simultaneously represent a prosecutor and the very people his office is investigating. With any luck, the DuPage County Board will lop off funding for Curry.

Jean Kaczmarek, co-chairwoman

Illinois Ballot Integrity Project, DuPage Chapter

Glen Ellyn