Will Co. (ECWd) –
DuPage Township Supervisor Bill Mayer has made it clear that if you have questions you need to e-mail them to him for answers. We did and the response is most telling.
Two of the questions asked: (there were several asked but this article will focus on a couple zingers)
- Have you or your wife or any business the two of you are affiliated with receive ANY compensation from Call One linked to business they were doing with DuPage Township while you were an elected official?
- Have you been notified of any tax liens against you and/or your property?
Shortly after sending the questions to Supervisor Mayer, the Township attorney responded that he is not nor will be representing Mr. Mayer concerning these “potentially libelous accusations.” It became evident we hit a nerve with one question from information found in a divorce record. For the record, none of our questions were libelous nor were there any accusations. We simply asked for clarification on matters based on court filings and public documents we have in our possession.
A few days later, Mayer’s personal attorney sent us a rather comical letter, and may have even placed his client in a pickle.
“Regarding the issue/questions about my client’s employment with Call One, it is my understanding, that my client has already stated, in public, that neither he, his wife, nor his company have ever received any income from Call One related to DuPage Township. Any statement to the contrary is false.”
So there is no confusion, his own private attorney stated, “Any statement to the contrary is False”.
If the attorney’s words are to be taken as factual, Supervisor Mayer may have a real problem.
Mayer has filed numerous Statement of Economic Interest documents with Will County that appear to conflict with his attorney’s statement. While Mayer verbally, at meetings, and now through his attorney, claims there has been no income recieved from Call One by either Mayer, his wife, or their business related to Call One doing business with DuPage Township, pieces of the puzzle appear to say otherwise.
After a recent Township meeting, his wife, we believe slipped in her attempts to protect her husband and confirmed he does not work for Call One but rather Wrangler, a company she owns, which Mayer is reporting an interest in and claims they do business with the Township. We covered that in this article.
Considering the puzzle pieces we already have that came from the public record, the following was asked of Mayer and his attorney:
Is your client taking the position that the following statements are false? If so, please tell us which statements are false.
- Your client has an ownership interest in Wrangler Unlimited Inc.
- Wrangler Unlimited has done business with DuPage Township
- Your client has received income from Wrangler Unlimited Inc. a company owned by his wife and of which he claims to be a partner.
- Wrangler Unlimited Inc. receives payments from Call One related to either a contract or commission based relationship.
As of today’s publication, there has been no response from his attorney nor Mayer himself. While Mayer has said during a public meeting that he would provide an affidavit to clear this matter up, he has yet to do so.
We know that the first three items above are true based on Mayer’s own Statement of Economic Interest filings. That leaves us with the last piece of the puzzle that both Mayer and his Attorney refuse to respond to. While the attorney states, “as he understands” there has been no income recieved, pay close attention to the wording from the lawyer.
“that neither he, his wife, nor his company have ever received any income from Call One related to DuPage Township.”
We did not ask about his company nor did we have any knowledge he owned a company. We asked about him, his wife, or any business the two of them are affiliated with. Note the attorney makes no mention of her business or his affiliation with that business. No, rather he breaks each entity down individually. he, his wife, nor “his” company. Slick way to avoid “her” company of which he has an interest in but is not the owner.
Why abstain if there are no business ties to Call One?
If there has been no income recieved from Call One either directly or through his wife’s business, as it relates to DuPage Township, why would he abstain from voting on the Contract for Call One? (Copy of minutes recording his abstention)
Is the fact Call One recieved a no-bid contract with the Township connected to his past affiliation with the company or is it because his wife’s company may be the one receiving a benefit?
The second question:
- Have you been notified of any tax liens against you and/or your property?
Please understand we knew the answer before we asked, which is typically the case in our line of work. Of interest in this question is the fact the attorney avoided even mentioning any type of response to this question in his response.
I sent a follow-up letter after receiving the attorney’s letter and as it relates to the tax liens, I stated:
“We provided him an opportunity to comment on receipt of any tax liens. Since you both have refused to respond to a simple question, let me advise you both. Mr. Mayer and his wife currently have $45,275.33 in Federal IRS Tax Lien’s according to Federal Documents obtained. I can provide you copies if you like. Does your client deny having these tax liens against him and his wife?”
As you can see by reviewing the IRS tax records here and here, Supervisor Mayer and his wife have three years worth of tax liens on record in Will County for over $45,000.00.
His attorney later responded in a second letter stating:
“Regarding the Tax Lien against my client and his wife in the amount of $45,275.33 this is also being contested and it is my understanding he has hired a separate attorney to in fact contest this lien.”
Notice that same theme of, “it is my understanding” used by the attorney. Attorneys only understand based on the information given to them by their client. I asked for the name of the separate attorney to try and confirm this claim and both Mayer and the Attorney have yet to respond to that inquiry.
While some will imply his personal tax problems have nothing to do with public business, we disagree. The pattern of one’s personal financial dealings can be used to learn about their public officials. For example, this story on Lincoln Way School District 210. The former School Board President of 10 years had similar problems. Currently, the Superintendent of that school is awaiting trial on 6 felony counts. Not only was the President unable to handle his own financial matters, but he also allowed the school’s financials to be destroyed, much like his own.
In DuPage Township, we have a Supervisor who has already admitted to improper spending from the Public Aid account known as General Assistance, confirmed an interest in a business that does business with the Township, and now abstaining from votes for a company he worked for who has recieved no-bid contracts with the Township. All these matters appear to point to financial malfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty. Couple that with substantial personal financial problems, he has no business as the Treasure for any public entity in our opinion.
His resignation should be tendered immediately.
But if you have any questions, just email them to Supervisor Mayer and he will get right back to you!
AnnoyedPosted at 01:12h, 14 January
Might want to spell check. Horribly written as well.
Kirk AllenPosted at 08:05h, 14 January
Quotes from the attorney are as they were written. If you have issues with what we wrote, point out the mistakes and any facts you can disprove and we will update accordingly.