As the curtain rises on the third and final act of “Assgate,” the Final Investigation Report (the “Report”) of Ancel Glink attorneys Robert McCabe and Margaret Kostopulos has been sent to the Township Trustees with a finding that, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, Trustee Dave Carrabotta’s alleged touching/groping of Trustee Kim Jones’ derriere could not be established.
For all practical intents and purposes Carrabotta has been exonerated.
Because such a finding flew in the face of Jones’ narrative – and her supporters’ lynch-mob insistence that, lack of evidence be damned, Carrabotta was guilty and should resign his Trustee seat – it unleashed a torrent of outrage and disgust, starting with Jones’ August 5, 2018 letter to Township attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer that was critical of Krafthefer, the investigators from her firm, the way the investigation was conducted, and its findings.
That Jones’ first shots were fired at Krafthefer and her two law partners is deliciously ironic, given how (a) it was Jones and Supervisor Laura Morask (along with Trustee Claire McKenzie) who anointed Krafthefer’s firm as the Board’s attorneys despite the objections of Carrabotta and Trustee Susan Sweeney; (b) Jones obtained personal, secret (at that time) and free (to her) legal advice from Krafthefer that led to Jones confronting Carrabotta on May 22; and (c) Jones obtained further personal, secret (at that time) and free (to her) legal advice from Krafthefer to file the Formal Complaint necessary to give Krafthefer’s partners something tangible to investigate.
Given that Jones must have figured she had the investigation wired, it was no surprise that she voiced no objection whatsoever to the free advice Krafthefer gave her, to Ancel Glink attorneys conducting the investigation, or to how the investigation was being conducted while it was going on.
But even hand-picked attorneys couldn’t wire the investigation when the only arguably corroborating evidence – consisting of nothing more than hearsay/lies(?) by Jones’ buddies, Clerk Peter Gialamas and Road Commissioner Wally Kazmierczak, about two other cases of alleged Carrabotta harassment – was blown away when the subjects of that hearsay, Dayna Berman and Vicki Rizzo, assured the investigators that not only were they not harassed by Carrabotta but that they had no problem with him whatsoever.
In other words, the Jones/RINO frame-up of Carrabotta failed because Berman and Rizzo wouldn’t lie for the RINOs.
So Jones decided to do what she should have done from the very beginning, and which would have cost the Township nothing: Filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) and the Illinois Dept. of Human Rights (the “IDHR”) instead of with the Township. We look forward to seeing how those two investigative bodies will view Jones’ narrative and non-evidence.
Then came the August 6 special meeting called by Reformers McKenzie and Sweeney for the single purpose of voting to release the Report to the taxpayers who paid for it, after Supervisor Laura Morask refused to release it upon McKenzie’s and Sweeney’s informal request. And although Morask’s revisionist history of these events includes her scheduling an August 8 special meeting, no such meeting was ever scheduled either before or after McKenzie and Sweeney called for theirs.
Neither Jones nor Morask attended the August 6 meeting: Jones claimed to be on vacation that night, and Morask claimed to be in the hospital for tests. Not surprisingly, their RINO allies – Gialamas, Kazmierczak and the Non-Assessor Susan Moylan-Krey (conveniently, Rep. Marty Moylan’s ex-wife) – also stayed away, presumably as a show of political solidarity with Jones and Morask against Carrabotta and his fellow Reformers.
Notwithstanding the RINO boycott, The Reformers lawfully voted to release the Report to the public. At that same meeting several citizens spoke in favor of the Report’s release, with Park Ridge Library Trustee Mike Reardon, Park Ridge-Niles School District 64 Board member Larry Ryles, Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism Executive Director Jayne Reardon and Park Ridge Library Trustee Joe Egan providing commentary worth watching – from the 13:05 mark to the 21:52 mark of the meeting video – and which should be required viewing by the RINOs even if they are incapable of learning anything from it.
The full complement of RINO officials showed up at the August 28 meeting, however, for what turned into a pep rally for Jones. Some of the more noteworthy cheers belonged to failed Township Trustee candidate (and short-lived Township payroller), Kelly Schaefer, who insisted (from 19:49 to 20:30 of the meeting video) that “while due process is categorically important, not victimizing the victim is more important.” Hopefully, Ms. Schaefer will feel that way the next time she tries to victimize the Township’s taxpayers by accepting a $30,000+ part-time, make-work job created by her BFF Morask.
Also worth listening to are Kristina Keller’s ipse dixit grand pronouncements (from 41:10 to 42:00) that “Most people who are victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment rarely lie about it” and “Kim is not lying about this”; and Ginger Pennington’s argument (from 38:20 to 40:15) that whether or not Carrabotta actually touched Jones really doesn’t matter so long as Jones “earnestly felt uncomfortable with what she felt was contact.”
But the highlight, by far, was the clownish performance of State Rep. Marty Moylan (D. 55th Dist.), who proved beyond any doubt – in just over a minute (from 35:05 to 36:28) of bloviating – that he is the most disingenuous political gas-bag in all of Maine Township, as can be seen from his locker room-style pep talk that began with “this isn’t about knocking Dave off the Board” but then closed with: “Dave should resign now!” All that was missing was a “Let us pray.”
The final scene of this play occurs outside Township Hall on September 26 with Jones shooting at anything that moves: Carrabotta individually and with fellow Reformers McKenzie and Sweeney (calling them, politically, the “Bloc of 3”); attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer for giving Jones bad free advice about meeting with Carrabotta, signing the Formal Complaint, and recommending that her partners conduct the investigation; anybody who questions whether she was harassed by Carrabotta; anybody who would dare to suggest this kerfuffle was a political ploy by her and her fellow RINOs to break The Reformers’ “Bloc of 3” majority; and, finally, Republican committeeman Char Foss-Eggemann for not siding with her and her unproved allegations against another Republican Trustee.
Drop the curtain, raise the house lights.
To read or post comments, click on title.
10 comments so far
Author, author!
Thanks for directing my attention to the meeting video where that buffoon Moylan put on his self-righteous act. Talk about a throwback to the political bosses of the smoke-filled room era.
In case you didn’t see it, a Herald-Advocate story just published this morning reinforces the “political divide” (per Jennifer Johnson) between The Reformers and the RINO establishment at the Township that wants to keep things the way they have always been; i.e., non-transparent, non-accountable.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you read all the transcripts (except McKenzie’s and Sweeney’s, which don’t exist) the totally political nature of this “harassment” claim becomes obvious – and even Jennifer Johnson gets it, as shown by her quotes from Wally the K (“[P]olitically, we don’t see eye-to-eye.” Tr. page 8, lines 2-5), Petey G (“[W]e were always happy with the way the township ran, and the other three have different ideas, and that tends to cause conflict sometimes.” Tr. page 7, lines 4-7) Dawn Hayman (“The new trustees are very different than our old board….” Tr. page 5, lines 17-24) and Doriene Prorak (“I’m close with most of the elected officials, except the three. We were a family before those three came along.” Tr. page 28, lines 16-20).
Typical political b.s. from the Township RINOs.
If this were legitimate Jones would have said something to him right then. Or if she were uncomfortable doing that, she would have told McKenzie and Sweeney to tell Carrabotta for her. But she only told her RINO friends who then made up lies about Berman and Rizzo.
I cannot even imagine the wailing coming from this board (editor and posters) if one of “non-reformers” had chosen to not have a court reporter present during their interview. Of course as long as they are on our side it is perfectly fine, right??
EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s not sugar-coat it or confuse people: The “non-reformers” = “RINOs.”
If it were up to this editor, EVERY witness not only would have had his/her testimony recorded by a court reporter, but it would have been under oath and under penalty of perjury – which might have caused Petey and Wally, and maybe Jones and Morask, some concerns. But if the two Ancel Glink investigators were willing to conduct certain interviews without a court reporter, that was their call.
That being said, from the attorneys’ summaries at Pages 12 and 15 of the Report, it’s clear that neither Sweeney nor McKenzie, respectively, knew about any brushing/swiping/touching of Jones – presumably because Jones chose to share that information only with her fellow RINOs. So unless you’re charging the two Ancel Glink investigators with lying about what they were told by Sweeney and McKenzie, what’s your point?
“I just chose to interview without that,” Sweeney replied. When Jones asked why, Sweeney said, “that was my choice.”
HITA????
EDITOR’S NOTE: It was her choice, one the Ancel Glink attorneys should not have allowed her to exercise but did. So your beef’s with them.
As for H.I.T.A., after having read all of those transcripts it’s clear that the Ancel Glink attorneys’ summaries of the testimony/interviews were quite accurate and representative of the material questions and answers for all those witnesses. Consequently, the cost of actually having those transcripts prepared – we’re guessing a few thousand dollars – was an unnecessary expense, although those transcripts do demonstrate: (a) how suspect Jones’ claims were; (b) how inaccurate or dishonest was Petey’s and Wally’s testimony about Berman and Rizzo having been harassed by Carrabotta; and (c) how the RINOs and Reformers didn’t play well together.
What incredible political courage by Sweeney and McKenzie to vote to release everyone else’s written transcript when they know damn well no such transcript even exists for them. They CHOSE not to have one.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, Slick, your beef is with the Ancel Glink attorneys who permitted Sweeney and McKenzie to make those choices.
Also, it was Morask and Jones who made and seconded, respectively, the motion at the August 28 meeting to spend $3-4,000 for all of the transcripts, although The Reformers’ votes made it unanimous. The Reformers were the ones who pushed for immediate release of the Report, which occurred at the August 6 special meeting called after Morask refused to release the Report on Sweeney’s and McKenzie’s request.
You hammer elected officials because they choose to go into closed meetings Even though they are not breaking a law they are avoiding complete transparency.
Yet in this case an elected official makes a less than transparent choice and you blame the lawyers. My beef is with them?? You give the elected official who made the choice to not be completely transparent a pass. Apparently HITA is flexible depending on what camp you are in. Back to my original comment, your post on this issue would be the exact opposite had one of the RINO’s done this.
As to the expenses, are you really trying to claim that Sweeney and McKenzie made this choice to save taxpayer money??? BAAAAAAH!!!! Was that while Sweeney was calling the lawyers at taxpayer expense every 5 minutes for status reports??
The issue is not whether the transcripts were worth it. They could have required none of them to have transcripts but they did not. The issue is that virtually all parties had this documentation except the two who CHOSE to not have a reporter. These two then got to vote to have all this information released knowing full well they by choice no such documentation existed for them. For that you applaud them for HITA.
EDITOR’S NOTE: H.I.T.A. isn’t a legal standard like IOMA or FOIA: It’s a standard of conduct that individual public officials should uphold in their public lives.
In our opinion Sweeney and McKenzie were wrong to the extent they refused to have their interviews recorded by a court reporter. But neither you nor anybody else has suggested that Sweeney or McKenzie were not honest or transparent in answering the attorneys’ questions; or that the attorneys’ summaries of their testimony contained in the Report were incomplete or in accurate in any material way.
But as we said in response to your 7:44 a.m. comment: The attorneys should have required EVERY interview to be given under oath and before a court reporter. Apparently the attorneys in charge of the investigation had the discretion to require a court reporter or excuse it, as you acknowledge with your: “They could have required none of them to have transcripts but they did not.”
We applaud every public official who votes to release all such available information to the public. The fact that there were no transcripts of Sweeney’s and McKenzie’s interviews because the attorneys didn’t require them, therefore, makes your beef with the attorneys for abusing their discretion.
First of all I am far from slick.
Second of all, from now on please do not go after elected officials for going into closed meetings as you do all the time.
If you are willing to say that Sweeney has no responsibility for her choice to avoid a transcript and that is the fault of the lawyers for allowing it then the same applies to closed meetings. The elected officials are only doing what the law allows. It is not their fault for making that choice. It is the fault of the law for allowing it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You are if you’re being paid to anonymously post the last 4 comments on behalf of the RINOs.
Of course Sweeney has responsibility for not submitting to her interview before a court reporter. But that’s a H.I.T.A.-based responsibility, not a legal one – just like going into closed session under an IOMA exception may be legal but it’s usually anti-H.I.T.A.
Put another way, going into closed-session meetings is like staying out at the bars after 2:00 a.m. (or after midnight, if you’re Methodist): Nothing good happens from doing so. That’s why, in “Assgate” (Act 1) we criticized Carrabotta for calling for such a meeting on May 22, and criticized McKenzie and Sweeney for going along with him irrespective of whether it was or wasn’t legal (For the record, it was not.)
Jones calling The Reformers the “bloc of 3” tells me all I need to know about what’s going on here. Political all the way, which demeans legitimate harassment.
Anonymous on 10.10.18 10:47 pm:
Agreed as to the “Bloc of 3” references by Jones, as well as all the demands for Carrabotta to resign so that their happy “family” (per Ms. Prorak) can be restored.
Moylan really is a bombastic clown. And how many times do Jones’ sister and Carrabotta’s wife get to do surrogate duty for Jones and Carrabotta?
That Keller woman got a full 8 minutes. Is she working on her master’s thesis in gender politics or just being used by the RINO politicians?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Jones has been hustling her story every chance she gets, while Carrabotta just sits there like a bump on a log and says nothing. But Jones’ sister v. Carrabotta’s wife in a “Celebrity Death Match” is what we’re stuck with.
We have no idea where Ms. Keller came from or why she has decided to thrust herself into the middle of this particular fray.
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>