Copyright 2022 All Rights Reserved.

May 18, 2022

Shelby County Board Member Gary Patterson -In Need Of Glasses?

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On January 14, 2022

Shelby Co. (ECWd)

Shelby County Board member Gary Patterson has established a clear pattern of providing false or misleading information when it comes to his comments during county board and county committee meetings.  We covered a few of those in this article.

During last night’s county board meeting there was some discussion regarding the auditor’s proposals.  Patterson points out the number of county audits listed with one firm and then claims he did not see any counties on the list of the other one.

Was he even looking?

Anyone who can read can see that not only is Cook County listed on the one he claimed he did not see any on, but there is also a laundry list of public bodies covering just about every unit of government found in Illinois.  Comparing the two proposals as it relates to government audits, it’s clear the one they chose did not list anywhere near the client list provided by the other.

How Patterson did not see Cook County on the list is laughable at best because not only is Cook County on the partial list of clients, but they are also the first one on the list of references.  So, it’s clear Patterson was not paying attention to what he was reading or intentionally misrepresented the truth of the matter.

Please don’t take our word for it.  Below are the client lists provided by both firms.  Click on then and compare the client lists.  After reading them ask yourself, which firm appears to have more experience?

Benford Brown & Associates partial list of clients

WIPFLI list of government clients

While Patterson focused on comparing the number of counties listed in one proposal and “not seeing” any counties in the other, it appears he ignores the fact Cook County was not only listed but has over 5 million people whereas the 13 counties he pointed to have a whopping combined total population of only 397,079.  An audit in Cook County would logically bring far more county audit experience into the equation than the 13 counties listed in the other proposal considering it is over 13 times the population.

While it was good to see the county moving forward with at least 1 required audit, we find it discouraging that they failed to have either of the two firms present to answer any questions before making a selection.  Additionally, the board has failed to follow the law and complete the Sheriff’s audit as required.  We will cover that in a separate article.

The full audit proposals can be downloaded at the following links.

Benford Brown & Associates

WIPFLI

The video of the board meeting is below and set for Patterson’s comments regarding what he failed to see in one of the proposals. We note this event because it is yet another example of Patterson making comments that have an influence on how board members act.  When those comments are wrapped in misinformation it misleads the board and the public.

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

2 Comments
  • JIMBO
    Posted at 02:59h, 15 January

    While rustling paper to show discernment, “The last thing that I saw… I don’t see any….”

    But the proposal does include, among other references, experience with city, village, township and county auditing. Yet no board member appeared alerted by the vice-chair not seeing something under his nose. At least none spoke up to set the matter for further discussion, anyway.

    Sunglasses on, unchecked.

    An auditor with experience in each area of county government (village, township, city) is different than an auditor with experience in county government only. That distinction could have been made to further discussion for the board’s consideration prior to a vote. Instead, it was lost by the vice-chair and the apparent willingness of certain other board members to go along with a rustled up see-saw, however undiscerning he is.

    Here’s to the vice-chair’s rose monocle; the board’s upcoming audit(s) results, and the county’s prescient lack of any hidden figures.

  • JIMBO
    Posted at 19:13h, 06 February

    It has been pointed out that I don’t understand what the Watchdogs are doing or how Illinois Leaks is purposed. Rather than begging to differ, I’ll refrain from consuming ECWd news reports and/or commenting on those in the future. I wish the Edgar County Watchdogs co-founders all the best.

$