ECWd’s – 110th State Representative Race
In Early December a request was made for the Discipline files for Sheriff Darrel Cox and John Clough. Darrel is asking for your vote for State Representative and John Clough is running for the Sheriff’s seat and also is a financial supporter of Darrel Cox in his State Rep Race.
Is there anyone that thinks a law enforcement officer’s discipline record should be exempt from the Freedom of Information act? Does the public have a right to know that information?
I have FOIA’d the Coles County Sheriff for his discipline records and he is refusing to provide them citing the personnel records review act 820 ILCS 40/8 (Click here for Sheriff’s Office Response)
So this guy wants your vote, has been proven to be a liar under oath and a laundry list of wrongdoing and now he doesn’t want you to see his records? What does the common citizen do when this happens? More often than not, nothing as what recourse are they aware of or have the time to pursue to get to the truth. This is why many elections are based on voting for the least evil of the candidates instead of the best candidate. We are confident that is not the case in this election because we are exposing it all!
Since Darrel Cox wants your vote and won’t give up his records we took it upon ourselves to ensure the public knew the truth about the kind of person Darrel Cox is because Zebras don’t change their stripes!
In Mr. Cox’s attempt to hide behind state law claiming records older than 4 years are exempt we advised him that the Illinois Appellate court didn’t believe him and in fact, provided the information in hopes he would do the right thing and provide the records. Surly they can’t be that bad that he has to hide them, or can they?
You can Run Mr. Cox but you can’t hide!
The Appellate Court of Illinois — Second District Opinion filed June 5, 1986 (see below) found the Act that Darrel Cox is hiding behind to be unconstitutional. If the ACT is found unconstitutional by the appellate court how can he legally hide behind it and refuse to give us the records? (Click here to read the entire case)
“In light of its ambiguous and inconsistent provisions, we are compelled to conclude that the Act is unconstitutional. Simply stated, an employer of ordinary intelligence by reading the statute has no way of knowing with reasonable certainty what rights it confers and what obligations it imposes. (See Vallat v. Radium Dial Co. (1935), 360 Ill. 407, 415.) Since we find the Act to be unconstitutional, it is not necessary to decide whether the trial court erred in finding that defendant’s conduct was a willful and knowing violation of the Act.”
He can do it because he thinks he is above the law and his actions prove that. Since Darrel Cox won’t comply with the request, even after being provided the court’s opinion, we took it upon ourselves to do the work for the people and make sure his records are available for everyone to see.
Now we get to look at his “private records” which we obtained through 100% legal means in spite of his insistence we can’t have them because they are in fact public records!
1. 1. What are the things other people saw in him? (Click HERE for applicable supporting documents on each point below)
- Lack of tact
- Lack of respect for senior officers
- Quick temper
- Allows temper and emotions to precede better judgment
- Conduct unbecoming a command officer
- Violates Direct orders
- Disciplined for not wearing proper dress by showing up in blue jeans.
Now I tend to agree the wearing of blue jeans is nothing major from a, “should I vote for this guy position”, however his response is very troubling when looking at his past response’s for being called out for breaking the rules.
First let’s recall what he told the courts about his drinking before duty, which clearly is an excuse that only the dumbest of people would tolerate.
“Plaintiff argues spending an evening drinking in a bar may have been an unfortunate choice of things to do while too ill to perform his duties as a sheriff’s deputy, but a choice which was not spelled out as forbidden.” (Click here to read from page 7 of Appeal).
Since its not spelled out that his clearly stupid actions are not forbidden, he thinks it’s OK. That’s what he told the courts! What did he tell the reporting officer pertaining to wearing blue jeans to a training seminar?
“Sgt. Cox stated that he had worn blue jeans to the seminar, but stated that he wasn’t able to wear dress slacks because of his broken toe”. (Click here to read the actual discipline report)
Does ANYONE believe for a second that his broken toe would prevent him from putting on a pair of dress slacks? Isn’t that just another lie?
2. Continued violations outlined in his record (Click here to read the actual discipline report):
- Violates Policy
- Violates standing orders
- Conduct Unbecoming to member of the department (Breast Grabbing)
- Failure to comply with Administrative Rules and Regulations
- Off Duty Conduct – Physical violence – Failed to report
- Failed to report to meetings -AWOL
Not convinced he has no business as a State Representative, let alone a Sheriff?
(Click on each of the bullet points to read the actual documents that clearly lay a multi-year foundation that he has no business in public office. )
- Failure to turn in reports in timely manner for a month and STILL needs to improve in this area.
- Do your evaluations and turn them in!
- Update your evaluations
- Needs to improve following instructions
- Needs to improve patrol activity
- Needs to improve on volume of work
- Spends too much time at various locations when you should be on the street!
- Fails to turn in projects that are due
- Missing several required meetings
- No initiative to service civil papers – reminded again to turn in reports
- Spending too much time in control room and disrupting corrections officers
- Had to be reminded again to turn in reports in a timely manner
- Lacks initiative to service civil process papers
- Low output – likes to be one of the boys – Does not apply himself
- Lowest possible rating in the category of supporting department policies and management decisions.
- On a scale of 1-9, one being the worst, gets a 1 when it comes to his work production.
- On a scale of 1-9, 1 being the worst, gets a 3 in ability to accept work assigned.
- On a scale of 1-9, 1 being the worst, gets a 5 in reliability of following through.
- Takes things personally rather than how they are intended
- For the LAST TIME, get these turned in on time!
Still not convinced this man has absolutely no business in public office?
In order to grasp the magnitude of disregard for the law this candidate has, all while wearing a badge and having taken an oath to uphold the law, please review each and every one of these articles that are filled with downloadable documents to support every word typed.
- Lied under oath
- Withheld information
- Violates rules of conduct
- Drinking before duty
- Violates administrative Rules and Procedures
- Conspired with co-workers to lie and cover-up his actions
- Judge states: Plaintiffs behavior not corrected with 17 years of progressive discipline
- Failed mandatory Drug Testing Criteria
- Best deputies he can grab the breasts of a co-worker and get away with it
- Lies about balancing his budget 6 of the last 7 years
People, we did the hard work of gathering all of these records. We simply ask that for the sake of our state, PLEASE read each and every one of them so that you become an informed voter!
For all the information we have reported on the Candidates for the 110th State Representative Race simply go to www.edgarcountywatchdogs.com/110
oldPosted at 15:33h, 28 February
With many cases when you apply for a job the employer will do a complete background check on you. Sometimes even the littlest thing can have an effect on you getting the job or not. Here are two men who have lots of things that would keep me fom hireing that person. Yet they seem to have the attitude of double standard. If you, your family etc. had been involved in some of these antics we would not be hired by anyone. What makes these guys think they are better than us? They should be held accountable and deprived of the right to hold an state office. If they did it once they’ll do it again, only we tax payer may well be the one who suffers in the long run. Say NO to Cox and Garner. We need honest, ethical people instead of riff raff representing us in state and federal government.
Zeb ClarkPosted at 12:27h, 06 March
Looks like the local party officials need to be cleaned out for even entertaining these two clowns Garner and Cox as being serious candidates. These dregs are bottom of the barrel all the way. Who in their right mind wants a sheriff who thinks its funny to grab a female deputy’s breasts, or an “auctioneer” who attends something called BEEVER fest and then claims he’s honest, godly etc. I guess we ought to be glad Cox isn’t accused of grabbing a man’s genitals like Dan “Dandy” Rutherford is now being sued for. Are these two sexual perverts the best the party leadership can find to represent their district….or is it that these pervs represent the mindset of the party hacks sitting in those smoke filled rooms. I’d sure think I was reading about the antics of democrats from Chicago if I didn’t know the whole story.