Edgar Co., IL. (ECWd) -
Is it any wonder certain county board members are collecting county insurance benefits (Farnham, and Heltsley and Zuber) in violation of law when the very person charged with prosecuting lawbreakers and advising the county board "as to their duties and responsibilities under the law" in Edgar County is reaping those same benefits, in violation of law?
Is it any wonder the Edgar County State's Attorney, Mark Isaf, wrote the Resolution that purported to provide health insurance to elected officials, in violation of law, by somehow adopting prior resolutions that no one can find or recite and that never existed?
We have the answer: Because Mr. Isaf is participating in this activity by collecting public funds in excess of what he is allowed to take.
A State's Attorney's salary [and benefits] is set by law, in the Counties Code, Section 4-2001., "State's Attorney Salaries". When Mark Isaf's salary was set, it DID NOT include participation in county health insurance programs, and it DID NOT include getting paid extra for "opting out" of the county health insurance program.
How much of your money has he stuffed into his pockets so far?
Nov 2015: HAS NOT BEEN PAID YET - but will most likely come up as bills payable at the Nov board meeting
Nov 2014: $844.00
Nov 2013: $143.34 plus all payments made for his insurance prior to him opting out
Life Ins @ $5.99/mo totals at least $215.64
So, at a minimum, he has become enriched by at least $1202.98 without taking into account payments made toward his insurance prior to him opting out, and only going back to Nov of 2012.
Maybe he should look at the statement he placed on the Edgar County State's Attorney's website and comply with the part about advising the County Board and other elected officials of the county.
"...Further, we provide legal advice and representation to the Edgar County Board, elected officials and department heads as to their duties and responsibilities under the law."
That part appears to be lacking lately, unless the County Board has refused his advice, in which case, I believe he is empowered to and has a duty to enforce their compliance with law thru the judicial system.