Shelby Co. (ECWd) –
This is Part V of the exposure of misrepresentations and misinformation provided by Shelby County State’s Attorney Nichole Kronke during her oral testimony in support of legislation affecting every county in the state. We urge everyone to read Part 1 at this link, Part II at this link, Part III at this link, and Part IV at this link.
This particular coverage of Kronke’s testimony is very troubling and should concern every taxpayer in the county. We have focused on a long history of what is a “proper” public purpose when it comes to evaluating the application of Article VIII Section 1. We now believe not only has Kronke misrepresented the facts involved in her attempt to pass legislation, but she appears to be intentionally misleading the State Legislature through both misrepresentations and now an omission of the Attorney General’s Offices’ actual written words.
- “When we acquired the Attorney General’s opinion in 2021, they cited to that debate and they wrote:”
Note in the video below, she said the AG wrote, then she reads the language claimed to be in the AG opinion, which was not an opinion as she claimed which was covered in Part IV at the link above.
She orally testified that what was written is as follows.
- “We note that the General Assembly is vested with broad discretion in determining whether a particular enactment serves a public purpose within the meaning of article VIII, section l(a), of the Illinois Constitution. Accordingly, when the General Assembly expressly authorizes a county to lease county property to a private entity, there is a presumption that a public purpose exists.”
The letter on page 9, as everyone can read at this link, actually says something different than Kronke claimed. (legal citations removed)
“We note that the General Assembly is vested with broad discretion in determining whether a particular enactment serves a public purpose within the meaning of article VIII, section l(a), of the Illinois Constitution. Accordingly, when the General Assembly expressly authorizes a county to lease county property to a private entity, there is a presumption that a proper public purpose exists.”
Did you catch the one-word difference?
How special for Kronke to omit in her testimony the word “proper” when reading the letter.
Kronke should resign from public office as her testimony was filled with misrepresentations and now a selective omission when claiming to be reading/quoting what was written in the AG letter. Her words were not accurate and were void of the most important word in this entire Article VIII Section 1 discussion.
As evidence of the importance of the word “proper” when speaking to public purpose, one only needs to read my written testimony during the same subject matter hearing. Removing the word proper from the proposed legislation and her testimony does not appear to be by accident and I spoke to that in my written testimony. All indications are her omission was intentional as that one word would force the discussion that to date she refuses to address publicly.
Stay tuned for more misrepresentations by the Shelby County States Attorney Nichole Kronke.