Copyright 2022 All Rights Reserved.

September 28, 2022

Former COD trustee should file complaint on herself, as a matter of principle!

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On July 1, 2015

DuPage Co. (ECWd)
Ten days after we published evidence of former COD trustee Savage using COD resources to assist in her campaign she now claims the Clean Slate Committee failed to report a loan within five days of receipt. (Savage Electioneering article)
According to the Chicago Tribune, “Former trustee Kim Savage filed a complaint with the Illinois State Board of Elections last week accusing the Clean Slate for College of DuPage Committee of failing to report a $20,000 loan within five days of receipt. The loan — which was received April 27 but not reported to the state until May 17 — came from a political committee tied to Katharine Hamilton, the board’s new chairwoman.”
According to the Daily Herald, “Savage said she filed the complaint as a matter of principle.
If she is to ever be believed, when will she file the complaint for her own illegal acts that utilized tax payer resources during her failed re-election attempt? (Savage Electioneering article)
For starters, keep in mind that the campaign loan was given 20 days AFTER the election took place so we can safely assume those funds had nothing to do with the election. In addition, the complaint is against a committee of which none of the three elected members nor Kathy Hamilton were officers.
Yes, the loan came from Mrs. Hamilton according to the A-1 reporting that reflects it was reported on April 27th, 2015 however since she was not an officer on the Clean Slate Committee she has no reporting obligation to the state for that committee. (See A-1 reporting page here)
If the reporting was in fact 15 days late then the following statute covers the ramifications.
(10 ILCS 5/9-10) (from Ch. 46, par. 9-10)
Sec. 9-10. Disclosure of contributions and expenditures.
Note this clause in Section C: The Board shall impose fines for willful or wanton violations of this subsection.
For those not familiar with that legal language, you have to have evidence that the violation was a willful or wanton violation. Willful or wanton is a pretty hefty hurdle to overcome and I am placing my bets on the State Board dismissing this complaint without any penalties.
What are the State Boards obligations?  In Section (c) …The Board may impose a fine for negligent or inadvertent violations of this subsection not to exceed 50% of the total amount of the contributions that were untimely reported, or the Board may waive the fine. When considering whether to impose a fine and the amount of the fine, the Board shall consider the following factors: (1) whether the political committee made an attempt to disclose the contribution and any attempts made to correct the violation, (2) whether the violation is attributed to a clerical or computer error, (3) the amount of the contribution, (4) whether the violation arose from a discrepancy between the date the contribution was reported transferred by a political committee and the date the contribution was received by a political committee, (5) the number of days the contribution was reported late, and (6) past violations of this Section and Section 9-3 by the political committee.Let’s break this down by the considerations the board must look at when assessing a violation.

  • (1) Whether the political committee made an attempt to disclose the contribution and any attempts made to correct the violation.

It’s clear the committee disclosed the contribution so this is a non-issue.

  • (2) Whether the violation is attributed to a clerical or computer error

Have not been able to determine what the violation was attributed to so for the sake of discussion, let’s assume this was not a clerical or computer error. Keep in mind, if it was, that carries weight in the board’s decision on the matter.

  • (3) The amount of the contribution

Considering the maximum amount is $50,000 by statute, I don’t think a $20,000 loan to a committee after the election is going to be much of a concern for the board.

  • (4) Whether the violation arose from a discrepancy between the date the contribution was reported transferred by a political committee and the date the contribution was received by a political committee.

It appears the alleged violation arose from a discrepancy between the date the contribution was reported transferred by Hamilton’s committee and the date the contribution was received by the Clean Slate Committee. The question that needs answers, what was the cause of discrepancy?

  • (5) The number of days the contribution was reported late.

The allegation is that it was reported 15 days late although looking at the A-1 reporting that does not appear to be the case. I would be interested to see how former trustee Savage came to that conclusion.

  • (6) Past violations of this Section and Section 9-3 by the political committee.

There are no past violations that we could find so this is a non-starter.

Considering this alleged violation took place well after the election I have a hard time believing that the State Board of Elections will assess any fines. I say that based on past experience with the State Board on similar matters.

Let’s not forget the excuse used by former COD attorney Ken Florey, who knows all too well about these types of matters. Florey’s excuse when the “Support College of DuPage PAC” had a complaint filed against them was to claim, “The Supporters of College of DuPage” is a group of volunteers and they just made an honest mistake.” (Click here for those documents)

That matter was before the election and the passing of a $168 Million Dollar Bond Referendum that was filled with electioneering problems. of which Savage was on the board during those events.

I wonder what Savage has to say about this article in which she used taxpayer funds in the push for the $168 Million Dollar bond referendum as a trustee. (Electioneering with paper trail to prove it. )

Or this article in which she again, as a trustee, used tax payer funds in a method that points to Election Interference. (Election Interference.)

And let’s not forget this person who attempts to point to “principal” as the reason for filing this complaint, has yet to do the right thing as it relates to her appointment to the ISAC board. A person who had principals would not need to be told to resign when they are no longer qualified to fill the seat because they are no longer a Community College trustee.(ISAC termination article)

If the State Board of elections determines the violation that have been alleged is worthy of fines then let it be a lesson to all, laws do matter and we support proper enforcement of those laws.

However one must now ask, when should the complaint for Kim Savage’s use of tax payer resources for her failed election attempt be reported? We chose not to pursue such a complaint with the State Board since she in fact lost the election, however, she is proving once again, you can’t let up when it comes to forcing corruption from our society. By all indications a complaint will need to be filed.

I would also urge the Chicago Tribune and The Daily Herald run a story on Savage’s electioneering during her campaign.  The evidence is all available and it shows taxpayer resources were being used in her failed attempt to get re-elected.

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

3 Comments
  • Tim Ashton
    Posted at 15:26h, 03 July

    Really! Kathy Hamilton breaks the State law and Board policy and you say no problem, this is just a political attack on her. KIm Savage is a very honest and ethical person; to bad we could not say the same about you and your boss Kathy.
    KIm Savage did the responsible thing reporting the clean slate violations to the election Board. They hold themselves out to be so righteous and there nothing more than a bunch of misguided Hamilton thugs who do not know how to tell the truth. Why don’t we let the professionals run the College then retired old men and bored housewives who don’t know what they are doing.
    You once again continue to show your lack of objectivity. Proves my point that you are on Hamilton’s payroll to distort the facts.

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 17:31h, 03 July

      Tim, What state law did Hamilton break? Board Policy cannot restrict an otherwise lawful expression of political or other speech, so I would say that no board policy was broken either.
      Was it honest and ethical for Savage to use public funds and public contractors to further her campaign? NO! So we have established that she may not be as honest and ethical as you would like to believe. Savage even claimed she agreed to consult with the college – which means the person at the college that asked her to consult with them on her campaign violated the law by interfering in her campaign under color of law – she should file a complaint with the Election Board against whomever suggested she consult with the college on her campaign business. If she was truly as “honest and ethical” as you claim, she would file that complaint.
      It is obvious you are not honest and ethical since you keep talking about Kathy as our “Boss” or us being on her “payroll” when you know that to be false and could never prove any of it.
      It appears the “Clean Slate” organization may have broken the reporting requirements of the election code, Hamilton is not responsible for that.

  • Kirk Allen
    Posted at 13:37h, 07 July

    Martin and Shelly, surely your smart enough to know when you use the same computer to post from your IP address shows up as one in the same. Go spam elsewhere as your input provides nothing but self promotion and lies.

$